HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Garnette Rose

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, William Blair,

Bruce Johnston and Larry Sinclair

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: January 14, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 70

Indexed as: Rose v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Garnette Rose, Applicant ) Osborne Barnwell, Counsel

Toronto Police Services Board, William Blair ) Ian Solomon, Counsel

and Larry Sinclair, Respondents )

Bruce Johnston, Respondent ) Melany Franklin, Counsel

[1] The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing.

[2] On May 9, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Rescheduled Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for January 15, 17 and 18, 2013. The Notice also informed them that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments. The Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice, and requests for adjournments thereafter will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness, or representative.

[3] The Notice also set out the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure with respect to disclosure of documents and witnesses. Rule 16 requires each party to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a list and copy of all documents that it intends to rely on, no later than 45 days prior to the first scheduled day of hearing. Rule 17 requires each party to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a witness list and brief statement summarizing the expected evidence of each witness no later than 45 days prior to the first scheduled day of hearing. In accordance with the Notice and Rules 16 and 17, the parties were required to disclose to each other and file with the Tribunal all the documents that they intend to rely on, a witness list and witness statements by no later than November 30, 2012. The respondents complied with Rules 16 and 17, but the applicant did not.

[4] On January 9, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction to the parties, which stated:

The applicant is directed to file the materials required under Rules 16 and 17, or confirm that the Application reflects the evidence that will be given by the applicant and that he will not be relying on any further documents or calling any further witnesses, by no later than January 11, 2013. If he fails to follow this direction, the Tribunal may dismiss the Application as abandoned, or prohibit him from relying on any further documents or calling any further witnesses at the hearing.

[5] On the same day, the applicant’s counsel sent the Tribunal two e-mails, which requested that the hearing be adjourned because his recent workload has been very heavy and he is not prepared to proceed on the scheduled dates. On January 10, 2013, the respondents sent the Tribunal correspondence, which opposed the applicant’s adjournment request because they have expended significant time and resources preparing for the hearing.

[6] The applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing was made more than 14 days after the Hearing Notice was issued to the parties. The Tribunal’s approach to late adjournment requests was set out in [Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/660) at para. [4](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/660):

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 [now 14 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 those broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days [now 14 days] that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

[7] I appreciate the applicant’s counsel’s honesty, but not being prepared to proceed because of a recent heavy workload does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that warrants the adjournment of the hearing.

[8] Accordingly, the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing is denied.

Dated at Toronto, this 14^th^ day of January, 2013.

“Signed by”

Ken Bhattacharjee

Vice-chair