Steven McKinnon v. City of Toronto et al., 2014 HRTO 256

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Steven McKinnon

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto

Respondent

Steven McKinnon

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen as Represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and Social Benefits Tribunal

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: February 25, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 256

Indexed as: McKinnon v. Toronto (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Steven McKinnon, Applicant

Self-represented

City of Toronto, Respondent ) Antonella Ceddia , Counsel

Her Majesty the Queen as Represented )

by the Ministry of Community ) Michelle Schrieder, Counsel

and Social Services, Respondent )

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to adjourn a half day preliminary hearing scheduled for February 27, 2014.

2The applicant makes his request in an email dated February 7, 2014. He submits that he has had recent issues with his health that may require surgery. He submits this surgery may take place during the week his hearing is scheduled although no firm date has been set for this surgery.

3The City of Toronto opposes this request in an email dated February 7, 2014. It submits the applicant has not established that he would be unable to participate in the scheduled hearing as no firm date has been set for the applicant’s surgery .

4On February 24, 2014 the applicant again wrote to the Tribunal and the parties to reiterate his interest in an adjournment noting that in addition to possible surgery he has a dental appointment on February 27, 2014.

5The Minisrty of Community and Social Services responded to the applicant’s February 24, 2014 email indicating that it also opposes the applicant’s adjournment request. It submits in an email dated February 24, 2014 that at this point in time it is unlikely the applicant will be scheduled for surgery on February 27, 2014 and that a dental appointment is not reason to grant an adjournment request.

6The applicant has written again to the Tribunal and the parties. In a further email dated February 24, 2014 the applicant submits he can be called at any time for the surgery he requires but that he should know by Wednesday, February 26, 2014 whether he is being scheduled for imminent surgery.

DECISION

7The Tribunal’s Confirmation of Hearing Notice states that requests for adjournments will be dealt with according to the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments. This Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing and that the parties need to confer and provide the Tribunal with alternative dates if a rescheduling is being requested. The Practice Direction also states that The Tribunal discourages requests for adjournments outside this 14-day period noting that later requests for adjournment, particularly ones at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Consequently, the Tribunal will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.

8The applicant’s request for an adjournment is dismissed. At this time the applicant is simply speculating that his surgery will be scheduled at a time that will prevent him from participating in his scheduled hearing for February 27, 2014. I am of the further view that the second reason the applicant has provided for his adjournment request, a scheduled dentist’s appointment, is insufficient reason to adjourn a hearing before the Tribunal.

9If the applicant does learn on Wednesday, February 26, 2014 that he is scheduled for imminent surgery he may renew his request for an adjournment. It would be appropriate for the applicant to provide with this request information from a medical practitioner, hospital or clinic to confirm the timing of the surgery and why the timing of this surgery would prevent the applicant from attending his scheduled half day hearing by telephone.