HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kathleen Finlay Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Finance Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: September 15, 2013 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1361 Indexed as: Finlay v. Ontario (Finance)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Kathleen Finlay, Applicant J.R. Finlay, Representative
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Finance, Respondent Amy Leamen, Counsel
1On December 19, 2013, the Tribunal directed that a Summary Hearing be held in this matter.
2The Summary Hearing was initially scheduled for May 16, 2014. On May 12, 2014, the applicant, who was self-represented at the time, asked for an adjournment because she had recently received the respondent’s materials and she indicated that she did not have sufficient time to review these materials. The applicant also indicated that she would be seeking independent legal advice and required time to find legal representation.
3The respondent consented to the adjournment and the matter was rescheduled to September 18, 2014. I note that the Tribunal does not usually allow for the adjournment of hearing on the basis that a party needs to retain legal representation.
4On September 12, 2014, less than one week before the rescheduled Summary Hearing the Tribunal received correspondence from J.R. Finlay, who now represents the applicant in this matter. J.R. Finlay states that due to a medical situation the applicant cannot represent herself at the Summary hearing. J.R. Finlay is not available on that date because he is undergoing a medical procedure. The applicant seeks to adjourn and reschedule the Summary hearing for a second time.
5The 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.
6In 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.
7I find that the applicant has not provided an exceptional reason to justify adjourning the hearing at this late stage. This matter has been rescheduled for Summary Hearing since June 2, 2014. The applicant decided to be represented in this matter; however, she should have ensured that she selected a representative who was available for the scheduled hearing. There is no explanation as to why the applicant has not retained legal representation with diligence, the basis on which she was granted an adjournment of the May 16 Summary Hearing. There is no explanation as to the medical condition that prevents the applicant form representing herself on September 18, 2014, and why she waited until September 12, 2014 to seek an adjournment of the Summary Hearing.
8The Tribunal has denied requests to adjourn in similar circumstances. See Elyas v. APlus Institute, 2010 HRTO 561. In these circumstances, I find that the applicant has not provided an exceptional reason to warrant the adjournment of the scheduled hearing for a second time and therefore her Request to adjourn is denied.
9The Summary Hearing will proceed as scheduled on September 18, 2014, at 1:30 p.m.
10I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of September, 2014.
“Signed by”
_________________________________
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair