HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Janet Brown
Applicant
-and-
Margoma Holdings Ltd. c/o Briarlane Rental Property Management Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott
Indexed as: Brown v. Margoma Holdings Ltd.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Janet Brown, Applicant
Austin Obodo, Representative
Margoma Holdings Ltd., Respondent
David Rubin, Representative
Introduction
1This Application is scheduled for a hearing on October 17, 2014, by Notice of Hearing dated March 27, 2014. It had been previously scheduled for a hearing on March 12, 2014, but was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
2The March 27, 2014 Notice of Hearing directed the parties to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In particular, the Notice of Hearing directed the parties to disclose their arguably relevant documents by April 17, 2014. It directed them further to exchange with one another and file with the Tribunal a list of the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing, copies of those documents, and a summary of their witnesses’ anticipated evidence (the “Pre-Hearing Materials”) by no later than September 2, 2014.
3The applicant did not disclose her arguably relevant documents by April 17, 2014 and did not provide her pre-hearing materials by September 2, 2014.
4In a September 30, 2014 Case Assessment Direction (the “CAD”), the Tribunal directed the applicant to deliver her pre-hearing materials by October 7, 2014. The CAD advised the applicant that if she intended to testify about the facts set out in the Application, it was sufficient for her to confirm this in writing by October 7, 2014. The applicant was directed to follow these directions and if she failed to do so, her Application may be dismissed as abandoned.
5On October 6, 2014, the applicant’s representative requested an extension of time to file her Pre-Hearing Materials. He advised the Tribunal that the applicant’s son is sick in her home country and she needs to travel outside of Canada.
6On October 7, 2014, the applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing. On the same day, the Tribunal requested documentation to support the adjournment request, namely, medical and travel documentation.
7On October 8, 2014, the applicant provided an affidavit deposing that her son is seriously ill in Jamaica. She deposed further that she is travelling to Jamaica on October 15, 2014, and returning to Canada on October 31, 2014. The applicant provided her plane ticket confirming these travel arrangements. The applicant purchased the ticket on October 8, 2014.
8The respondent objects to the applicant’s adjournment request for the following reasons: (a) respondent’s counsel’s first communication with the applicant’s representative, since his retainer on March 5, 2014, was on October 6, 2014; (b) the applicant has had one adjournment request, which was reluctantly agreed to by the respondent; (c) the respondent has made arrangements (twice) for the attendance of an out of town witness at the hearing; (d) needless costs have been incurred as a result of the delays; (e) the applicant did not purchase her ticket until October 8, 2014; (f) the applicant failed to provide medical documentation requested by the Tribunal; and (g) the applicant has failed to provide an explanation as to why this matter has not been advanced in any way since March 5, 2014.
decision
9The Tribunal’s practice is to grant adjournments only in exceptional circumstances. See Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4.
10I accept the applicant’s affidavit that her son is seriously ill. Although the Tribunal requested medical documentation, it may have been difficult for the applicant to obtain this documentation from Jamaica, especially if her son is an adult. The travel information indicates that the trip was planned last-minute, likely because it was urgent. The plane ticket was purchased on October 8 for travel on October 15, 2014. I therefore accept the applicant’s evidence that she is travelling to Jamaica because her son is ill. I find the applicant has established an exceptional circumstance upon which to grant her request for an adjournment. For this reason, the adjournment is granted.
11That said, I fully understand the respondent’s frustration. There was no communication from the applicant’s representative from the time of his retainer in March 2014 until October 6, 2014. The applicant has not complied with her pre-hearing obligations. This is the second adjournment request by the applicant. The respondent has been put through additional costs and inconvenience as a result of two adjournment requests from the applicant. Because of this, I make the following directions.
directions
12The hearing scheduled for October 17, 2014 is adjourned and the hearing date is cancelled.
13The hearing will be rescheduled by the Tribunal. The rescheduled date will be peremptory on the applicant, meaning it will not be rescheduled at the applicant’s request. It will proceed on the rescheduled hearing date.
14The applicant must file her Pre-Hearing Materials by November 28, 2014. If the applicant fails to do so, her Application may be dismissed as abandoned. The respondent may request a dismissal of the Application on this basis if this applicant fails to meet this deadline.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of October, 2014.
“Signed by”
Jennifer Scott
Vice-chair```