HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kula Ellison
Applicant
-and-
Regent Park Community Health Centre, operating as, Adelaide Women’s Art Studio and Josie Ricciardi
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: Ellison v. Regent Park Community Health Centre
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Kula Ellison, Applicant
Self-represented
Regent Park Community Health Centre, operating as, Adelaide Women’s Art Studio and Josie Ricciardi, Respondents
Arleen Huggins, Counsel
1In this Application, filed on May 4, 2012, under s.34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of race, colour, ancestry and ethnic origin with respect to goods, facilities and services, and also made sexual advances and reprised against her contrary to the Code.
2A Case Assessment Direction was issued by the Tribunal on December 20, 2012, directing that a summary hearing be scheduled in order to hear argument on whether parts of the Application are out of time, and in order to determine whether there is no reasonable prospect for the Application to succeed. A Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties on January 13, 2013, advising them that the summary hearing would take place on March 20, 2013.
3On March 6, 2013, the applicant requested an adjournment in order to have time to retain counsel, and the respondents consented. The Tribunal sent a letter to the parties on March 13, 2013 cancelling the summary hearing and asking for the parties to choose from over 20 dates to reschedule. The applicant wrote to the Tribunal on March 28, 2013, requesting May 22, 2013 as the new date for the summary hearing, and requesting that the matter be in person.
4On April 8, 2013, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties, granting the applicant’s requests, and confirming that the new date would be May 22, 2013, and that the matter would be heard in person.
5On May 8, 2013, the applicant requested another adjournment in order to retain counsel. The respondents oppose the request, arguing that the applicant has had more than sufficient time to retain representation.
6The Notice advised the parties that requests for adjournments would be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s “Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments”, which states in relevant part:
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.
7The Tribunal has often held that a party’s failure to retain counsel in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that warrants adjournment of the hearing, including when counsel is unavailable or unprepared to proceed on the scheduled date: Alijohn v. Spectra Aluminum Products, 2012 HRTO 577; Pazhaidam v. North York General Hospital, 2011 HRTO 1663; Davie v. PMA Brethour Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1198; Wilson v. York (Regional Municipality), 2009 HRTO 2020; Schenk v. OSAD, 2010 HRTO 446; Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660.
8In this case, the basis for the applicant’s adjournment request is that the applicant continues to seek legal representation. In my view, the applicant has already had ample opportunity to retain legal counsel to represent her. In the circumstances, the applicant has failed to establish that her request for an adjournment is due to extraordinary circumstances as opposed to her own failure to retain counsel in a timely manner. The applicant’s request for an adjournment is denied. The hearing will proceed as scheduled on May 22, 2013.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of May, 2013.
”signed by”
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair