Fern v. 2243758 Ontario Inc. o/a Canadian Tire Gas Bar Plus, 2014 HRTO 1138

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jacenta Fern Applicant

-and-

2243758 Ontario Inc. o/a Canadian Tire Gas Bar Plus Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: July 30, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1138

Indexed as: Fern v. 2243758 Ontario Inc. o/a Canadian Tire Gas Bar Plus

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jacenta Fern, Applicant Self-represented

2243758 Ontario Inc. o/a Canadian Tire Gas Bar Plus, Respondent Michael Nungisa, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The hearing of this case is scheduled to begin on October 14 and 15, 2014. The Notice of Hearing was issued on June 9, 2014. On June 30, 2014 the applicant by proposed counsel requested the rescheduling of the hearing because of staffing issues with the legal clinic which it anticipated being resolved in August 2014. The applicant also sought an extension of time to file a Reply. The respondent opposes both Requests.

3The Requests to re-schedule the hearing is denied. The Request for an extension of time to file a Reply is granted to September 3, 2014. The other time lines set out in the Notice of Hearing will be amended as set out below.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournment will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The Practice Direction states the following regarding requests for adjournments:

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.

5In my view the nature of the applicant does not constitute an exceptional circumstance as contemplated by the Practice Direction. I also observe that at this stage the constraints relied on by the applicant do not necessarily justify the adjournment of the hearing as other measures can be taken to ensure the fair, just and expeditious adjudication of this Application on the dates scheduled. To that end the Tribunal grants the request to extend the time for filing a Reply to September 3, 2014. Although the respondent opposes any extension of time to the applicant it offers no reasons for its opposition. In my view, at this stage, there is no prejudice apparent in extending the time lines and in the circumstances sufficient reasons to do so to ensure the orderly adjudication of the hearing on the dates scheduled.

6Accordingly the Tribunal makes the following Orders and Directions:

a. The request to adjourn the hearing dates currently scheduled is denied;

b. The applicant will deliver and file her Reply, if any, before September 3, 2014;

c. To the extent not already produced the parties will deliver to each other all arguably relevant documents in their possession in accordance with Rule 16.1 before September 10, 2014.

d. The parties will deliver and file the materials required of them under Rule 17.1 as enumerated in the Notice of Hearing before September 30, 2014.

7I am not seized of this case.