Pereira v. Designer Furniture and Art, 2014 HRTO 290

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Adelia Pereira

Applicant

-and-

Designer Furniture and Art,

Victor Brewda, Frank Falbo and Michael Brewda

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: March 6, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 290

Indexed as: Pereira v. Designer Furniture and Art

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Adelia Pereira, Applicant

Wade Poziomka, Counsel

Designer Furniture and Art, Victor Brewda, Frank Falbo and Michael Brewda, Respondents

Stuart Reddington, Counsel

1This Interim Decision is issued in response to the respondents’ request for the adjournment of the hearing in this matter, which is scheduled to proceed in Toronto on March 17, 18 and 19, 2014.

2By letter dated March 4, 2014, the respondents requested an adjournment of the hearing in this matter. While respondents’ counsel states that he previously had sent letters dated February 19 and 28, 2014 requesting an adjournment, the Tribunal has no record of having received any such letters. The respondents’ request for an adjournment is opposed by the applicant.

3The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a … hearing …. Requests for adjournments, particularly at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Therefore, the HRTO will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the HRTO will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.

Where a party seeks to adjourn a previously scheduled mediation or hearing, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises. They must contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing.

The party making the request should contact the Registrar and provide the exceptional circumstances supporting the request and any alternative agreed upon dates. Where the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by email or fax, copied to the other parties.

4The Tribunal’s Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties on July 24, 2013, almost eight months in advance of the scheduled hearing dates.

5The respondents state that they are prejudiced by the receipt of the applicant’s documents that she intends to rely upon at the hearing, which comprise two volumes. These documents were delivered to the respondents on February 6, 2014, and have been in the respondents’ possession for almost one month now. In my view, this does not represent the kind of extraordinary circumstance that would justify an adjournment.

6The respondents make reference to the Case Assessment Direction recently issued by this Tribunal, requiring them to comply with their pre-hearing obligations under the Rules by March 10, 2014. They state that this is prejudicial to the applicant. However, the applicant is not seeking an adjournment of this matter, and can raise any issues arising out of the late production of these materials at the hearing. The fact is that the respondents ought to have complied with these obligations by January 31, 2014, in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and as set out in the Notice of Hearing. The respondents’ failure to comply with their obligations under the Rules does not provide any proper basis to grant an adjournment requested by the respondents and opposed by the applicant.

7The respondents state that one of their witnesses is now unavailable to attend the hearing on the scheduled dates. As stated above, the respondents have been on notice of the hearing since the latter part of July 2013, and could and should have taken steps at that time to ensure that their witnesses were available for the hearing. The respondents do not indicate who this witness is, or why this person’s evidence is critical for a fair hearing in this matter. It may be that alternate arrangements can be made to receive this witness’ evidence, and that is a matter that can be addressed at the hearing. It is not a proper reason to grant an adjournment.

8The respondents state that one of the personal respondents, Michael Brewda, has a significant work obligation that prevents him from attending the hearing. Once again, the respondents have been on notice of the scheduled hearing since the latter part of July 2013 and arrangements ought to have been made by all respondents to attend the hearing as scheduled. I appreciate that having to miss a work obligation may cause inconvenience to this personal respondent, but that is not any different than the kind of inconvenience caused to many parties and witnesses in legal proceedings. This does not provide a proper basis to grant an adjournment.

9Finally, the respondents state that no prejudice would be caused to the applicant as a result of granting an adjournment. Whether or not that is true, the onus lies on the respondents to bring forward extraordinary circumstances to justify the granting of an adjournment at this late stage. They have failed to do so.

ORDER

10For all of the foregoing reasons, the respondents’ request for an adjournment is denied, and the hearing will proceed as scheduled on March 17 to 19, 2014.

11The respondents shall comply with the directions provided in the Tribunal’s Case Assessment Direction dated March 3, 2014 by no later than March 10, 2014.