Chauvin v. Extendicare (Canada) Inc., 2014 HRTO 1570

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jessica Chauvin

Applicant

-and-

Extendicare (Canada) Inc.

Respondent

-and-

Unifor (CAW-Canada)

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: October 23, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1570

Indexed as: Chauvin v. Extendicare (Canada) Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jessica Chauvin, Applicant

Christine Lundy, Representative

Extendicare (Canada) Inc., Respondent

Mary Kokosis, Counsel

1The hearing of this Application was scheduled for October 29 and 30, 2014.

2By letter dated September 29, 2014, the applicant’s representative indicated that the applicant would likely be requesting that the Tribunal adjourn the hearing due to her medical inability to take part in the hearing.

3By letter dated October 10, 2014, the applicant’s representative filed with the Tribunal a note from the applicant’s family doctor stating his opinion that the applicant was not fit to testify at the hearing for medical reasons. Therefore, the applicant’s representative requested an adjournment of the hearing.

4By letter dated October 13, 2014, the respondent consented to an adjournment of the October 29 and 30, 2014 hearing dates. However, the respondent did not consent to an indefinite adjournment. It took the position that the applicant should obtain further medical information regarding the applicant’s ability to participate in a hearing in the future.

5The applicant’s representative provided a letter dated October 15, 2014 from the applicant’s psychiatrist indicating that the applicant is unfit to take part in a hearing due to symptoms of mental illness.

6The Tribunal’s practice is to grant adjournments only in exceptional circumstances. In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4, the Tribunal explained why an adjournment of a scheduled hearing will not be granted, even where the other party consented, 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 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 days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

7Based on the medical information provided by the applicant’s representative and the respondent’s consent, I find it appropriate to grant the applicant’s request to adjourn the October 29-30, 2014 hearing dates.

8The applicant’s representative has indicated that the applicant is expected to be medically fit to participate in a hearing in six months’ time. In the circumstances, the Tribunal will put the Application in abeyance until April 23, 2015.

Order

9For the reasons set out above, the hearing scheduled for October 29-30, 2014 is adjourned. The Application will be placed in abeyance until April 23, 2015. On that date, if the Tribunal has not received a request to extend the period of abeyance, the Application will be placed back in the Tribunal’s hearing scheduling queue. If the applicant’s medical condition improves before April 23, 2015, the applicant’s representative must advise the Tribunal in order for the Tribunal to reschedule the hearing. If the applicant wishes to request an extension of the abeyance period, she must file medical evidence from the applicant’s psychiatrist explaining why the applicant remains unable to participate in a hearing.