R.C. v. District School Board of Niagara, 2013 HRTO 189

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

R.C. and S.C. by her next friend R.C.

Applicants

-and-

District School Board of Niagara

Respondent

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission and Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Intervenors

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: February 1, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 189

Indexed as: R.C. v. District School Board of Niagara

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

District School Board of Niagara, Respondent

Ranjan K. Agarwal, Counsel

1The Tribunal received a letter from counsel for the respondent at 4:02 PM today, February 1, 2013, seeking an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, February 5, 2013, in St. Catharines. It states that as a result of submissions made by the intervenor Canadian Civil Liberties Association (“CCLA”) the Board intends to seriously and in good faith consider the policy at issue in this case, including whether to amend or repeal it. Accordingly, it states that the Application may become completely or partially moot. It seeks an adjournment, or, in the alternative, mediation of the Application pursuant to Rule 15.

2The request for an adjournment is denied. If the applicants and respondent agree, the Tribunal is prepared to engage in mediation/adjudication of the Application pursuant to Rule 15A, but all parties must be prepared to proceed if there is no agreement to mediation/adjudication or a settlement is not reached.

3The Tribunal does not adjourn on the basis that a party is reconsidering its position because of the submissions of another party. As the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling reads in relevant part as follows:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or 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.

The HRTO typically will not adjourn a hearing date because the parties wish to “engage in settlement discussions” or are “close to a deal.” The HRTO encourages mediation and settlements, and will assist the parties in this regard. Where parties believe they may be able to resolve a matter shortly before the scheduled hearing, they may request mediation/adjudication in accordance with Rule 15A (and Rule 8A and 17A for s. 53(3) and s. 53(5) applications). However, the HRTO discourages the cancellation or adjournment of hearing dates so that the parties can explore settlement.

4In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4, the Tribunal explained the reasons for this as follows:

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.

ORDER

5The adjournment request is denied. The hearing will proceed on Tuesday, February 5, 2013.