HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Samira Abowat
Applicant
-and-
Research Now Limited
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Indexed as: Abowat v. Research Now Limited
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Samira Abowat, Applicant
No Submissions
Research Now Limited, Respondent
Christine Thomlinson, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, sex, family status, and also alleging reprisal or threat of reprisal.
2On July 17, 2013, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking an adjournment of the hearing dates scheduled in this matter. It indicates that it has terminated its retainer with previous counsel and that it has retained new counsel. It submits that additional time is necessary for counsel to review and meet the deadline for submitting witness statements and disclosing documents, set for July 19, 2013. It also indicates that the parties are attempting to settle the matter before the end of August. The respondent also indicates that the applicant has consented to the request and indicates that the parties seek to have the matter rescheduled for no earlier than December 2013.
3Notice of Confirmation of Hearing in this matter was sent to the parties on February 19, 2013. Included in that notice was direction with respect to dates for disclosure pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and direction regarding requests for adjournments. It noted that if a party seeks an adjournment, they are to do so within 14 days of the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing. It advised the parties that a hearing would only be adjourned or rescheduled in exceptional circumstances.
DECISION
4The Practice Direction on requests to adjourn or reschedule reads as follows:
The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a hearing, described above. Requests for adjournments, particularly at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Therefore, the HRTO will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the HRTO will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.
Where a party seeks to adjourn a previously scheduled mediation or hearing, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises. They must contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing.
The party making the request should contact the Registrar and provide the exceptional circumstances supporting the request and any alternative agreed upon dates. Where the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by email or fax.
5In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4, the Tribunal explained why, even when there is consent, an adjournment of a scheduled hearing will not be granted absent exceptional circumstances:
The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of proceedings before it. It expects to receive thousands of applications each year. The Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all parties before the Tribunal. Therefore, when an adjournment request is made, it is not only the interests of the parties to the particular proceeding must consider, but the fact that Tribunal time reserved for the resolution of those parties’ dispute will no longer be used. For that reason, among others, the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments indicates that even adjournment requests made on consent of the parties more than five days after the hearing is scheduled may be denied. The Tribunal has balanced the interests of parties in having hearings scheduled according to their and counsel’s availability with these broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.
6Counsel for the respondent seeks an adjournment on the basis that it will not be possible to meet the deadlines for production of documents and that the parties are attempting to settle the matter. The respondent has been aware of the scheduled hearing date for several months, and has had the opportunity to prepare for the hearing or to retain legal counsel in sufficient time to prepare. Retaining counsel late in the day has not been viewed as a legitimate reason to grant an adjournment. Further, the Tribunal has not viewed a request for more time to engage in settlement discussions as an exceptional circumstance. See for example Kostrikov v. York Condominium Corporation #201, 2012 HRTO 458, Paris v. Elizabeth Fry Society of Ottawa, 2012 HRTO 164, Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 (see also paragraph 5) and Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 534.
7In this case, I am not satisfied that the respondent has provided a reason that would justify granting an adjournment. As there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant adjournment of this hearing, the respondent’s request to adjourn the scheduled hearing days is denied. The hearing will proceed on the dates scheduled.
8The parties have not yet met all of their obligations pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The parties are granted an extension until August 15, 2013 for disclosure required by Rules 16 and 17.
DIRECTION
9The parties will deliver to the other party and file with the Tribunal documents in compliance with the requirements of Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure no later than August 15, 2013.
10I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of July, 2013.
“Signed By”
Maureen Doyle
Vice-chair