Vincent Sinclair v. London Public Library, 2014 HRTO 182

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Vincent Sinclair Applicant

-and-

London Public Library Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: February 7, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 182 Indexed as: Sinclair v. London Public Library

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Vincent Sinclair, Applicant Self-represented

London Public Library, Respondent Yola Ventresca, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request to adjourn the summary hearing scheduled for February 10, 2014.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent discriminated against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (the “Code”). By Case Assessment Direction dated August 7, 2013, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be scheduled to address whether some or all of the Application should be dismissed on the basis of delay or on the basis that the Application, or part of it, stands no reasonable prospect of success.

3By Notice of Summary Hearing dated October 22, 2013, the Tribunal scheduled the summary hearing for Monday February 10, 2014. On or around January 28, 2014, the applicant filed with the Tribunal a Notice of Constitutional Question in which he alleged that the Tribunal’s summary hearing process is unconstitutional and raised several other allegations.

4On Friday February 7, 2014, the respondent’s counsel requested that the summary hearing be adjourned and rescheduled due to an unexpected personal familial matter.

5In these circumstances, the Tribunal would normally contact the applicant by e-mail or fax to seek his written submissions in relation to the respondent’s request. However, the Tribunal does not have an e-mail address or fax number for the applicant.

6In the above circumstances, I determine that an adjournment is appropriate. The Tribunal generally adjourns hearings only in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the applicant has made very wide ranging claims in his Notice of Constitutional Question that was filed just at the end of January. The Tribunal will require submissions from both parties with respect to these claims. Therefore, in my view, it is appropriate to adjourn the summary hearing due to the respondent’s request and the applicant’s constitutional claims.

Directions

7For the reasons set out above, the summary hearing scheduled for February 10, 2014 is adjourned. The parties shall advise the Tribunal within seven days of the date of this Interim Decision of dates on which they are available for the rescheduled summary hearing. The parties must provide all dates for which they are available in February, March and April 2014. After having received the parties’ availability the Tribunal will forward a Notice of Rescheduled Hearing to the parties.

8The parties are advised that the Tribunal will hear the parties’ submissions with respect to the claims set out in the applicant’s Notice of Constitutional Question at the outset of the rescheduled summary hearing. Following these submissions, the Tribunal will hear the parties’ submissions in relation to the issues contained in the Tribunal’s August 7, 2013 Case Assessment Direction.