McPherson v. Thrift Magic LP, 2014 HRTO 1496

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robin McPherson

Applicant

-and-

Thrift Magic LP

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: October 9, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1496

Indexed as: McPherson v. Thrift Magic LP

1A hearing in respect of this Application was scheduled for October 8 and 9, 2014, in Toronto.

2On October 6, 2014, the applicant requested an adjournment of this hearing on the basis that she was unable to attend due to “current work commitments.” In her request she provided no other reasons or details about these work commitments. The respondent did not oppose this request, but otherwise did not cite any reasons why this matter should be adjourned.

3The adjournment was denied by Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 1488 on October 7, 2014, and the parties were advised that the hearing would proceed as scheduled. As noted in that Interim Decision, the Notice of Hearing, issued on April 17, 2014, advised the parties that:

If you cannot attend the hearing on the date(s) scheduled, you must act within 14 days of the date of this Notice to arrange for rescheduling. After that, a hearing will be adjourned or rescheduled only in exceptional circumstances, even if both parties agree to an adjournment. …

Requests for rescheduling and adjournment will be dealt with in accordance with the Practice Direction on Scheduling located on the HRTO’s website at http://www.hrto.ca/hrto/?q=en/node/46.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments reiterates that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournments will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The Practice Direction states in part as follows:

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 adjournments, even when all parties consent. [Emphasis added]

5In the Interim Decision, the Tribunal advised the applicant that “only extraordinary circumstances will justify an adjournment” at this late stage in the proceedings. The applicant responded at 2:24 p.m. to the Interim Decision by providing further details about her request. In particular, the applicant states she was away from work the previous week for health-related reasons and her employer does not want her “to be absent from work to attend the hearing tomorrow” given her absence the week before.

6The Assistant Registrar wrote the following to the parties at 3:57 p.m.:

The hearing scheduled for October 8 & 9, 2014 will proceed as scheduled. If the applicant has further information relating to her request fro adjournment, she can renew her request at the hearing.

7The applicant wrote the following in an email to the Registrar at 7:01 p.m. (received by the Tribunal the morning of October 8, 2014):

As I have advised, I am unable to attend the hearing on Oct. 8 and Oct. 9. I am requesting that this meeting be rescheduled.

8As indicated in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction, late requests to adjourn hearings are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. The Tribunal has set aside two days to hear this matter. The applicant has not provided the Tribunal with any other information other than her employer does not wish her to be absent from work. This, on its own, does not constitute an exceptional circumstance that would justify an adjournment. The applicant has not availed herself of the opportunity to provide further information. For these reasons the applicant’s request to “reschedule” the hearing is denied.

9The respondent and its counsel attended the hearing as directed by the Tribunal, but the applicant was not present at the commencement of the hearing. There is no question that she was aware of the Tribunal’s direction, given her response to the Tribunal’s email. In accordance with the Tribunal’s usual practice, I waited until 10:00 a.m. before proceeding. When the applicant was still not present at that time, I advised the respondent that the Tribunal would not be proceeding with this Application and released the respondent’s representatives.

10On the basis of the information before me, I find that the applicant intentionally disregarded the Tribunal’s requirement that she attend. In these circumstances, the Application is dismissed on the basis that the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.