Moore v. Ferro & Company, 2014 HRTO 296

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Philton Moore

Applicant

-and-

Ferro & Company, Lou Ferro and Ellen Helden

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: March 7, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 296

Indexed as: Moore v. Ferro & Company

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Philton Moore, Applicant

Self-represented

Ferro & Company, Lou Ferro and Ellen Helden, Respondents

Stacey Ball, 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 Hamilton on March 24, 25 and 26, 2014.

2By letter dated March 5, 2014, the respondents’ counsel requested an adjournment of the hearing in this matter, on the basis that Mr. Ferro, one of the named personal respondents and the principal of the respondent law firm, is currently undergoing medical treatment and is unable to attend the dates scheduled for the hearing. Counsel states that Mr. Ferro is unable to attend the hearing as a witness or a party, and as a practising lawyer cannot attend any litigation proceedings. It is stated that the Regional Senior Justice has been made aware of Mr. Ferro’s medical state and Mr. Ferro has not been required to attending proceedings in the Superior Court which are currently scheduled. It is stated that Mr. Ferro is a part of this proceeding and a critical witness, and that the proceeding cannot commence without Mr. Ferro’s presence. It is stated that Mr. Ferro will be required to listen to the applicant’s evidence and, among other things, provide comments so that the applicant can be cross-examined and the applicant’s evidence be responded to. The respondents request that this matter be adjourned until Mr. Ferro can medically resume court appearances and attend the hearing.

3The applicant responded by e-mail on March 5, 2014. While not formally objecting to the adjournment request, the applicant raises two issues. First, the applicant states that, if the respondents filed any medical documentation with the Tribunal in support of their request, then he is entitled to see it. I can advise the applicant that no such medical documentation has been submitted. Second, the applicant takes the position that correspondence from respondents’ counsel unsupported by medical documentation is not sufficient to support granting the adjournment.

4The 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.

5Medical treatment that prevents a party from being able to attend a hearing is the kind of extraordinary circumstance that justifies the granting of an adjournment. The only real question here is whether respondents’ counsel should be required to provide medical documentation in support of the request in order for the adjournment to be granted. In my view, that is not necessary in these circumstances. Respondents’ counsel and Mr. Ferro himself are experienced counsel and officers of the court. In the absence of some reason to doubt what is being stated by counsel, this Tribunal (as well as the courts and other administrative tribunals) routinely rely upon statements made by counsel about medical issues (and deaths and other extraordinary circumstances) to grant adjournments without requiring documentary proof. This is particularly apt in this case, where Mr. Ferro already has been excused due to his medical condition from being required to attend proceedings in the Superior Court.

6In my view, medical documentation is not required in these circumstances to support the respondents’ adjournment request, which is hereby granted. The respondents are directed to advise the Tribunal and the applicant regarding when it is expected that Mr. Ferro will be medically able to attend the hearing, and the parties are directed to consult with each other to provide alternate proposed hearing dates in accordance with this expectation.

ORDER

7For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal hereby makes the following order:

a. The respondents’ request for an adjournment is granted, and the hearing dates currently scheduled for March 24, 25 and 26, 2014 are hereby cancelled; and

b. The respondents are directed to advise the Tribunal and the applicant regarding when it is expected that Mr. Ferro will be medically able to attend the hearing, and the parties are directed to consult with each other to provide alternate proposed hearing dates in accordance with this expectation.