HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Robleh Gukadowr
Applicant
-and-
Access D Solutions Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Gukadowr v. Access D Solutions Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Access D Solutions Inc., Respondent
Chris Tonks, Counsel
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. This matter is scheduled for a one day hearing in Toronto on June 17, 2013.
2On May 2, 2013, the Tribunal received a letter from the respondent seeking an adjournment of the hearing. The respondent requests an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that it has retained new counsel who is not available for the scheduled hearing due to a previous commitment.
3For the reasons that follow the adjournment request is denied.
4The Tribunal has made it clear on numerous occasions that adjournments, particularly at the last minute, are not automatically granted. In its Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments, it states that:
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 adjournment, even when all parties consent.
5In 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 [now fourteen] 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 [now fourteen] days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.
6I find that the respondent has not provided an exceptional reason to justify adjourning the hearing at this late stage. This matter has been scheduled for hearing since November 22, 2012. I find that the respondent was not diligent in retaining the services of a lawyer and should have ensured that the lawyer was available for the scheduled hearing. The Tribunal has denied requests to adjourn in similar circumstances. Elyas v. APlus Institute, 2010 HRTO 561 and Amicucci v. York Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 242.
7In these circumstances, I find that the respondents have not provided an exceptional reason to warrant the adjournment of the scheduled hearing and therefore their Request to adjourn is denied. However, I will grant the respondent a short extension to file its hearing materials.
ORDER
8The Tribunal orders:
a. The respondent’s request to adjourn is denied;
b. The respondent must by no later than May 14, 2013:
i.Confirm in writing to the Tribunal that it has delivered all of its arguably relevant documents to the applicant;
ii.Deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal all documents upon which it intends to rely at the hearing (“Hearing Document List”) and a copy of each document on that list, or confirmation that it does not intend to rely on any documents during the course of the hearing; and
iii.deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal a witness list (which should include the name of any applicant who intends to testify) and a detailed summary of the expected evidence (will-says) of each witness.
9In the event that the respondent does not comply with the orders in this Interim Decision this may limit the ability of the respondent to call a witness or rely on a document during the course of the hearing in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of May, 2013.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair