Siddall v. St. Clair College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2013 HRTO 444

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Derek Siddall

Applicant

-and-

St. Clair College of Applied Arts and Technology

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: March 15, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 444

Indexed as: Siddall v. St. Clair College of Applied Arts and Technology

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Derek Siddall, Applicant

Bryce Chandler, Counsel

St. Clair College of Applied Arts and Technology, Respondent

Lisa Kwasek, Counsel

1The Tribunal received a letter from counsel for the applicant on March 8, 2013, indicating that he had just been retained by the applicant and would be seeking an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for April 4 and 5, 2013. A formal letter seeking the adjournment, dated March 12, 2013, was received by the Tribunal.

2Counsel states that he has other obligations between now and the scheduled hearing dates which would give him insufficient time to meet with the applicant and prepare for the hearing. He indicates he would be available starting April 19, 2013 with the exception of a few dates, which he makes note of.

3The respondent objects to the adjournment request. Counsel for the respondent notes that she will be commencing a maternity leave in late June, 2013, and that it would cause her client significant prejudice if new counsel were required to be brought on because the hearing could not conclude before she commenced her leave. She does provide alternative dates when she could make herself available in the period prior to her leave.

4The request for an adjournment is denied.

5The 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.

6In 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.

7If the parties agree, 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.

8I also note that the respondent’s counsel indicates that the Tribunal may require an additional day to complete this hearing. The parties are advised that a further hearing date is scheduled for May 29, 2013.

ORDER

9The adjournment request is denied. The hearing will proceed on the April 4 and 5, 2013 hearing dates. A further hearing date of May 29, 2013 is scheduled.