F.S. v. Etobicoke Youth Soccer Club, 2014 HRTO 227

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

F.S. by his next friend M.S.

Applicant

-and-

Etobicoke Youth Soccer Club, Ontario Soccer Association, Toronto Soccer Association and Remo DiCarlo

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: February 19, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 227

Indexed as: F.S. v. Etobicoke Youth Soccer Club

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Etobicoke Youth Soccer Club and Remo DiCarlo, Respondent

Robert Richler, Counsel

1This is an Application filed on October 9, 2012, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to membership in a vocational association because of ancestry, place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin. The Tribunal has also stated that the social area engaged by the facts of this Application appears to be goods, services and facilities. See F.S. by his next friend M.S. v. Etobicoke Youth Soccer Club, 2013 HRTO 1111. The hearing of this matter is scheduled for February 24 and 25, 2014.

2This Interim Decision addresses a request for adjournment of the hearing made by the respondents Etobicoke Youth Soccer Club (“EYSC”) and Remo DiCarlo. In a letter dated February 18, 2014, counsel for these respondents stated that he had been recently retained and requires time to become acquainted with the facts of the case and to provide a full response on behalf of his clients, including ensuring all appropriate documents and witness statements have been filed. Counsel also requested mediation, which he submitted would enable to the parties to settle the matter or narrow the issues to be dealt with at a hearing.

3Counsel for EYSC and Mr. DiCarlo did not indicate whether he had contacted the other parties to seek their consent regarding this request and the other parties have not had an opportunity to respond to it. It is not necessary for the other parties to respond to the request because, for the following reasons, it is denied.

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, such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Accordingly, the Tribunal grants adjournment sparingly. In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, The Tribunal stated at paragraph 4:

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.

5Parties appearing before the Tribunal are not required to retain counsel and the EYSC and Mr. DiCarlo have represented themselves until this point in this proceeding. The Tribunal notified the parties of the date of the hearing of this matter by Notice of Hearing, dated August 26, 2013. Accordingly, the EYSC and Mr. DiCarlo had ample time to obtain legal representation and advice in a timely manner had they exercised some diligence. The Tribunal has consistently ruled that retaining counsel shortly before the commencement of a hearing does not amount to an extraordinary or exceptional circumstance. See, for example, Riad v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2013 HRTO 1370, and Simone v. Amazing Custom Fabricators Inc., 2013 HRTO 285.

6Pursuant to Rule 15A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the parties may, if they agree, participate in Mediation-Adjudication, in which the Tribunal member hearing the Application, i.e., this writer, may also act as a mediator. At the outset of the hearing, I intend to offer Mediation-Adjudication to the parties, as is my normal practice.

7The request to adjourn the hearing is denied.