Peter Simone v. Amazing Custom Fabricators Inc., 2013 HRTO 285

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peter Simone

Applicant

-and-

Amazing Custom Fabricators Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 20, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 285

Indexed as: Simone v. Amazing Custom Fabricators Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Amazing Custom Fabricators Inc., Respondent

Hubert Leung, Counsel

1The Tribunal received a letter from counsel for the respondent on February 13, 2013, seeking an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for March 14 and 15, 2013. It states that counsel was recently retained by the respondent and has "very little time to review the file and submit a proper response." I would note that the request was made more than four weeks in advance of the hearing dates.

2The request for an adjournment is denied. As of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant has not filed a response to the request for the adjournment. However, in light of the decision to deny the adjournment a response is not necessary.

3If the applicant agrees, the Tribunal is prepared to engage in mediation/adjudication of the Application at the outset of the hearing 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.

4The Tribunal does not adjourn on the basis that a party retains counsel too close to the hearing dates. Parties are expected to retain counsel in a timely fashion. The relevant portion of the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling reads 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.

5In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4, the Tribunal explained the reasons for its position on adjournments 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 [now 14] days after the hearing is scheduled may be denied.

6In the alternative, counsel seeks "some leniency in Rules 16 and 17 of the HRTO's Rules of Procedure for producing witnesses and documents". The adjudicator hearing this matter will determine whether such leniency is appropriate should the matter proceed to hearing.

ORDER

7The adjournment request is denied. The hearing will proceed on the March 14 and 15, 2013 hearing dates.