Tammy Caron v. Lakeside Plastics Limited and Ken Siddall, 2014 HRTO 141

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tammy Caron

Applicant

-and-

Lakeside Plastics Limited and Ken Siddall

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: January 31, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 141

Indexed as: Caron v. Lakeside Plastics Limited

APPEARANCES

Tammy Caron, Applicant

Shawn Weston, Representative

Lakeside Plastics Limited and Ken Siddall, Respondents

Claudio Martini, 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 with respect to employment because of disability, marital status, association with a person identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and reprisal. This Interim Decision records my reasons for granting an adjournment request during a preliminary hearing.

2The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing by teleconference to be held in this matter on January 30, 2014 to address whether the Application should be dismissed for delay or because the substance of the Application was dealt with in another proceeding. On January 30, 2014, Mr. Martini appeared on behalf of the respondents to request adjournment and rescheduling of the preliminary hearing. Mr. Martini explained that the individual respondent has carriage of the matter for the respondents and intended to attend the preliminary hearing. Unfortunately, he fell ill on the evening of January 29, 2014 and was unable to attend; Mr. Martini advised that the respondents would provide medical documentation of the individual respondent’s condition, if requested. Mr. Martini stated that he was instructed to attend the hearing at the last minute, but advised that he had not had an opportunity to acquaint himself with the Application or review the materials filed by the parties. Consequently, Mr. Martini submitted that he was not in a position to properly represent his client and requested an adjournment.

3The applicant opposed the adjournment request and submitted that significant time had passed to get to this point in the proceeding and that further delay would cause her prejudice. The applicant noted that the respondents filed written submissions and that it was not clear that the individual respondent’s presence was necessary.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing and that outside that time adjournments will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the Tribunal grants adjournment sparingly.

5However, I was satisfied that the request for a brief adjournment was justified and made an oral order granting the adjournment request. The individual respondent has been representing the respondents throughout this proceeding and fell ill immediately before the hearing date. In these circumstances, there was insufficient time for Mr. Martini to prepare for the hearing and it would have been unfair, in my view, to require the respondents to proceed.

Order

6The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The preliminary hearing scheduled on January 30, 2014 is adjourned;

2. With 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the individual respondent shall file with the Tribunal and deliver to the applicant medical documentation attesting to his inability to attend the preliminary hearing on January 30, 2014; and,

3. The parties are directed to provide their available dates for a preliminary hearing by teleconference that are within 12 weeks of the originally scheduled hearing dates to the Registrar within 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The Tribunal shall thereafter send the parties a notice confirming the re-scheduled dates.