Altus Lewis v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2013 HRTO 1933

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Altus Lewis

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: November 21, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1933

Indexed as: Lewis v. Toronto Transit Commission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Altus Lewis, Applicant

Selwyn Pieters, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings, filed on November 20, 2013, asking the Tribunal to adjourn a hearing scheduled for November 26, 2013, and January 30, 2014.

2Counsel for the applicant submits the applicant was in a motor vehicle accident on October 19, 2013, in which the applicant injured his neck, back and shoulder. The applicant is currently off work. Counsel provided a note from the applicant’s attending physician that states the applicant was in a motor vehicle accident, was injured and is currently undergoing physiotherapy and rehabilitation. The physician’s note indicates that the applicant will be unable to attend his November 2013 and January 2014 hearing dates.

3The respondent has not, as of yet, provided a response to the applicant’s request.

DECISION

4The Tribunal’s Confirmation of Hearing Notice states that requests for adjournments will be dealt with according to the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments. This Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing and that the parties need to confer and provide the Tribunal with alternative dates if a rescheduling is being requested. The Practice Direction also states that The Tribunal discourages requests for adjournments outside this 14-day period noting that later requests for adjournment, particularly ones at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Consequently, the Tribunal will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.

5The applicant’s request for an adjournment is allowed. Illness of a party can be an exceptional circumstance that warrants the granting of an adjournment. I am satisfied, based on the medical information before me, that an adjournment is appropriate.

6The applicant’s counsel asks that new dates be scheduled for April 2014. It is not clear on what basis counsel asks for dates in April 2014, whether this is required because of he applicant’s medical condition or whether this is a preferred time based on consideration of other factors. However, I will leave it to counsels to identify two hearing dates that are mutually acceptable before April 30, 2014.