Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
John Bonifacio
Applicant
-and-
Tristar Disaster Recovery Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mark Hart
Indexed as: Bonifacio v. Tristar Disaster Recovery Inc.
1This Interim Decision is written in anticipation of the hearing in this matter, which is scheduled to proceed on January 13 and 14, 2014.
2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondent’s request for re-scheduling of the hearing.
3By e-mail dated December 17, 2013, the respondent requested that the hearing be re-scheduled to a later date in February 2014. The basis for this request is that the respondent is in the disaster recovery industry, and since July 2013 has been overwhelmed with work due to flooding that occurred. The respondent states that it cannot properly prepare for the hearing and with the holiday season rapidly approaching, it is under a crunch to complete its jobs as its customers have waited for some time due to the overwhelming amount of claims. The respondent states that it has attempted to properly prepare for the hearing but has been unsuccessful, and requests to have the hearing re-scheduled.
4The applicant objects to the respondent’s request to re-schedule the hearing. The applicant states that the respondent’s request for adjournment does not provide any information that suggests the kind of “extraordinary circumstances” required by the Tribunal to approve an adjournment pursuant to the “Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournment”. The applicant notes that notice of the hearing was provided to all parties by the Tribunal over three months ago on September 11, 2013. The Applicant submits that to grant an adjournment simply because a company is busy with work would not be consistent with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction, jurisprudence on adjournments, or the fair, just and expeditious manner in which these matters are handled. Applicant’s counsel further states that, in any event, she is not available on the alternate dates suggested by the respondent in February 2014.
5The respondent has indicated that, if applicant’s counsel is not available on the dates it proposed, it can be available for the hearing on any subsequent date.
6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states:
The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a … hearing …. 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, copied to the other parties.
7The Tribunal’s Notice of Hearing was delivered to the parties by letter dated September 11, 2013. By that time, the flooding referenced by the respondent already had occurred and the respondent ought reasonably to have been aware of the impact on its business in relation to its ability to prepare for and attend the hearing in mid-January 2014. The respondent was afforded 14 calendar days from the date of that notice to request re-scheduling of the hearing, but did not do so.
8While I appreciate that the respondent company is very busy with its work and is trying to complete this work by the end of the year, that is not the kind of extraordinary circumstance that justifies re-scheduling the hearing in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction and case law. Accordingly, the respondent’s request for re-scheduling is denied and the hearing will proceed as scheduled on January 13 and 14, 2014.
9In previous correspondence from the Tribunal, the respondent had been granted an extension to file its witness statements to December 18, 2013 at noon. In the circumstances, the Tribunal grants the respondent until 5 p.m. today to serve and file its witness statements for the hearing.
ORDER
10For the foregoing reasons, I hereby make the following order:
a. the respondent’s request for re-scheduling is denied and the hearing will proceed as scheduled on January 13 and 14, 2014; and
b. by 5 p.m. on December 18, 2013, the respondent shall serve and file its witness statements for the hearing
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of December, 2013.
“Signed by”
Mark Hart
Vice-chair