HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Keith Hassell
Applicant
-and-
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Hassell v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union
APPEARANCES
Keith Hassell, Applicant
Andrew Morrison, Counsel
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Respondent
Nini Jones, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to membership because of race, colour, ancestry, and ethnic origin.
2In a Case Assessment Direction dated April 24, 2013, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal advised the respondent that it did not need to file a Response. The summary hearing is scheduled on January 16, 2013.
3On January 2, 2013, the respondent filed written submissions in advance of the summary hearing. In these submissions the respondent raised the issue that the Application was not filed within one year of the last date of alleged discrimination (the “delay issue”).
4In a Case Assessment Direction dated January 8, 2012, the Tribunal directed that the applicant should be prepared to address the issue of delay at the summary hearing, and that if he wished he could file written submissions on the issue in advance of the hearing.
5On January 8, 2013, Mr. Morrison who is counsel for the applicant wrote to the Tribunal to advise that he was no longer representing the applicant. Mr. Morrison states that the applicant is in the process of seeking new counsel to represent him with respect to this matter and that he seeks an adjournment of the summary hearing.
6The respondent consents to the applicant’s request to adjourn.
DECISION
7The Tribunal’s 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.
8In 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.
9The Tribunal has granted adjournments in cases in which parties find themselves unrepresented without sufficient notice through no fault of their own. See: Sander v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 2012 HRTO 1181.
10Having reviewed this matter, I find that there are exceptional circumstances which warrant adjourning the scheduled hearing. I find that the applicant was diligent in retaining legal representation immediately in this matter and that through his conduct throughout this proceeding he has demonstrated his intention to be represented. The applicant finds himself unrepresented, with very short notice.
ORDER
11The Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The January 16, 2013 summary hearing is adjourned and the Tribunal shall canvass the availability of the parties to reschedule the hearing;
b. The applicant must, within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, confirm in writing that he wishes to proceed with this Application, failing which the Application may be dismissed as abandoned; and
c. If the applicant wishes to make any written submissions in advance of the summary hearing these must be delivered and filed within 21 days of the summary hearing.
12I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of January, 2013.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair