Chmurzewski v. Natural Touch Rehabilitation Center, 2013 HRTO 269

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anna Agnieszka Chmurzewski

Applicant

-and-

Natural Touch Rehabilitation Center

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: February 14, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 269

Indexed as: Chmurzewski v. Natural Touch Rehabilitation Center

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Anna Agneiszka Chmurzewski, Applicant

Self-represented

Natural Touch Rehabilitation Center, Respondent

Allan M. Freedman, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex.

2This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request for an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates.

3On July 16, 2012, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing. That Notice scheduled the hearing for March 14 and 15, 2012. It noted, on the first page, that requests for adjournment would be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments available on the HRTO’s website.

4In an email dated January 21, 2013, the respondent’s counsel wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the hearing dates of March 14 and 15, 2013 be adjourned, due to school holidays. Attached to the email was correspondence addressed to the applicant, dated January 15, 2013, in which the respondent made the same request for an adjournment.

5On January 27, 2013, the applicant wrote an email to the respondent and copied the Tribunal, indicating that she did not agree to an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates.

DECISION

Request for Adjournment

6The 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.

7In 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.

8Counsel is essentially indicating that he has another commitment on the dates scheduled for hearing, though he has not actually indicated that he cannot attend. In any event, absent exceptional circumstances, unavailability of counsel has not been viewed as a legitimate reason to grant an adjournment. See for example, Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion 2009 HRTO 534 at paragraph 6 and Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion 2009 HRTO 660 at paragraph 5.

9In 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.

10I am not seized of this matter.