Taylor-Cole v. Orangeville Police Association, 2013 HRTO 489

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sean Taylor-Cole

Applicant

-and-

Orangeville Police Association, Lindsay White, Doug Fry and Diane Waddell (LeBlanc)

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: March 22, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 489

Indexed as: Taylor-Cole v. Orangeville Police Association

1This is an Application that was filed with the Tribunal pursuant to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. This Interim Decision deals with an adjournment request made by the respondents.

2The hearing dates of May 6 and 7, 2013 were set on January 7, 2013 after consultation with the parties.

3In the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing Date the parties were advised as follows:

Requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the HRTO’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments located on the HRTO’s website at http://www.hrto.ca/hrto/?q=en/node/46.

You are strongly encouraged to agree on mutually available dates that are within 12 weeks of the original hearing date(s). If the parties are able to agree on alternative dates, one party must advise the HRTO Registrar in writing within 14 days of the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing. The HRTO will make every effort to schedule the hearing for dates provided by the parties.

If the parties are unable to agree on alternative dates, the party asking that the hearing be rescheduled must contact the HRTO Registrar in writing, copied to the other parties, and provide five alternative dates (or blocks of dates if the hearing is scheduled for multiple days) that are within 12 weeks of the originally scheduled hearing date(s). This must be done within 14 days of the date of the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing. The HRTO will contact the other parties to try to find mutually agreeable dates. If, after a reasonable number of attempts, the parties are unable to agree on dates, the HRTO will set the dates for the hearing without agreement of the parties.

Please remember to provide copies to the other parties of anything you send to the HRTO Registrar.

If this hearing date was scheduled after consultation with the parties the HRTO will only adjourn or reschedule the hearing in exceptional circumstances.

If you are unable to attend the hearing on the date(s) scheduled, you need to act quickly to arrange for rescheduling.

4The respondents wrote to the Tribunal on March 15, 2013 requesting an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that the respondents’ counsel is unavailable on one of the two dates scheduled. The applicant has consented to the adjournment. The respondent also advises that the parties are of the view that the hearing will not be concluded in the two days scheduled.

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournments will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The Practice Direction states in part 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.

6When a party agrees to a date or dates for hearing it is their responsibility to ensure that their representatives are available on those dates. As indicated above the Tribunal affords the parties 14 days after the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing is issued to request a re-scheduling of the hearing where circumstances require it. After that time has passed only extraordinary circumstances will justify an adjournment. The parties also state that the hearing will not be completed in the time allotted. However in my view the reasons offered for this request do not constitute exceptional circumstances that would justify an adjournment. Accordingly, the adjournment request is denied.

7I am not seized.