Biondic v. Intact Financial Corporation (formerly ING Canada), 2013 HRTO 1613

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Adrianna Biondic

Applicant

-and-

Intact Financial Corporation (formerly ING Canada)

and Sandra Schwering and Rohan Singh

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: September 25, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1613

Indexed as: Biondic v. Intact Financial Corporation (formerly ING Canada)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Adrianna Biondic, Applicant

Self-represented

Intact Financial Corporation, Sandra Schwering and Rohan Singh, Respondents

Christine Thomlinson, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under s. 53(5) 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.

2The respondents deny having discriminated against the applicant contrary to the Code.

3On June 18, 2013, the Tribunal wrote to the parties, providing “Confirmation of Hearing dates and Required Preparation”. It advised that based on the parties’ availability, hearing dates have been scheduled for January 21 and 30, 2014, from 1:30 to 4:30 p.m. each day. Half day, non-consecutive hearing days, have been scheduled as an accommodation of the applicant’s stated needs. The Tribunal’s letter also provided the deadlines of July 18, 2013 and January 2, 2014 for exchanging and filing materials prior to the hearing.

4On July 17, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP), seeking an adjournment of the January 21 and 30, 2014 hearing dates. She provided a note from Dr. R. Bray dated July 11, 2013, which stated that “due to medical reasons, Ms. Biondic’s Human Rights file with the employer needs to put [sic] on hold for at least six months”. The applicant submits that she requires an adjournment as she had been occupied with other legal proceedings and housing related issues, and “as an accommodation of [my] disabilities”.

5On July 24, 2013, the respondents filed their response to the RFOP, indicating that they consent to an extension of the applicant’s deadline for filing materials which were due July 18, 2013, provided she is required to file those materials at least 45 days in advance of the scheduled hearing dates.

6Additionally, in their response to the RFOP, the respondents object to the applicant’s request for an adjournment, noting that between February 23, 2006 and March 8, 2011, the matter had been scheduled for mediation on 5 occasions and that each time, the applicant had requested an adjournment due to illness. Ultimately, mediation attempts were conducted over the telephone over a period of 18 months, without success. The respondents submit that this has resulted in an “overly lengthy process”. Further the respondents submit that the numerous requests for an adjournment of the mediation, several of which have been at the last minute, have “been a significant impediment to a fair process as the parties have been prevented from moving this matter towards a conclusion”. They also submit that in light of the multiple adjournments of the mediation, they are concerned that the matter “will not proceed to a hearing without undue delay and further adjournment requests”.

DECISION

7The Practice Direction on requests to adjourn or reschedule a hearing or a Case Resolution Conference reads as follows:

Scheduling and Rescheduling Hearings

The HRTO’s approach to scheduling and rescheduling hearings is designed to give the parties a fair opportunity to obtain suitable dates.

When a hearing is scheduled, the HRTO will issue a Confirmation of Hearing setting the date(s) for the hearing, as well as the location and start time.

If rescheduling is required, the parties are encouraged to agree on mutually available dates that are within 12 weeks of the original hearing date(s). If the parties are able to agree on alternative dates, one party must advise the HRTO Registrar within 14 days of the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing. The HRTO will make every effort to schedule the hearing for dates provided by the parties.

If the parties are unable to agree on alternative dates, the party asking that the hearing be rescheduled must contact the HRTO Registrar in writing, copied to the other parties, and provide five alternative dates (or blocks of dates if the hearing is scheduled for multiple days) that are within 12 weeks of the originally scheduled hearing date(s). This must be done within 14 days of the date of the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing. The HRTO will contact the other parties to try to find mutually agreeable dates. If, after a reasonable number of attempts, the parties are unable to agree on dates, the HRTO will set the dates for the hearing without agreement of the parties.

Requests for Adjournments

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.

8In 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.

9On review of the applicant’s July 17, 2013 request for an adjournment and accompanying documentation, I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided a reason that would justify granting an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates of January 21 and 30, 2014. As there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant adjournment of this hearing, the applicant’s request to adjourn the scheduled hearing days is denied. The hearing will proceed on the dates scheduled.

10The applicant is granted an extension to December 2, 2013, for filing disclosure of the materials which were originally due July 18, 2013. The remainder of the materials which the applicant is required to file with the Tribunal and deliver to the other parties by January 2, 2014, remain due January 2, 2014.

11I am not seized.