Baichan v. Assante Capital Management Ltd., 2014 HRTO 441

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Patricia Baichan

Applicant

-and-

Assante Capital Management Ltd. and Dixie Allen

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: March 28, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 441

Indexed as: Baichan v. Assante Capital Management Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Patricia Baichan, Applicant

Sajjad A. Najem, Representative

Assante Capital Management Ltd. and Dixie Allen, Respondents

K.C. Wysynski, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on September 27, 2012, and alleges discrimination with respect to employment.

2This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to adjourn a summary hearing in this matter scheduled for April 7, 2014.

3On November 8, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing in this matter, indicating that the Application was scheduled to be heard on April 7, 2014, commencing at 9:30 a.m. By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated January 8, 2014, the Tribunal directed that the hearing scheduled for April 7, 2014 be converted to a half-day summary hearing by conference call. The Tribunal’s January 8, 2014 CAD was followed by a Notice of Summary Hearing dated January 17, 2014, confirming that a summary hearing was scheduled for April 7, 2014, commencing at 9:30 a.m.

4Both the Tribunal’s Notice of Hearing and Notice of Summary Hearing informed the parties that requests for adjournments would be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling. The Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice, and requests for adjournments thereafter will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness, or representative.

5On March 21, 2014, the Tribunal received correspondence from the applicant’s representative requesting an adjournment of the April 7, 2014 summary hearing, because he has been scheduled to appear in small claims court at 11:45 a.m. on April 7, 2014. The applicant’s representative submits that, in normal circumstances, he would have no problem changing the date if the other party in the small claims court matter was represented, but the other party is self-represented.

6The respondents filed a response to the applicant’s adjournment request on March 26, 2014, adamantly opposing the request for an adjournment.

DECISION

7The applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing was made more than 14 days and well after both the original Notice of Hearing and the subsequent Notice of Summary Hearing were issued to the parties. The Tribunal’s approach to late adjournment requests was set out in Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 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 [now 14 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 those broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days [now 14 days] that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

8In my view, the applicant’s representative has described nothing exceptional about his scheduling conflict. The adjournment request has also been made at a very late date, a little over two weeks prior to the scheduled summary hearing, and the applicant’s representative has not indicated when he was informed that the other matter was scheduled in small claims court, or if he made any attempt to reschedule the other matter. I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any exceptional circumstances sufficient to warrant adjourning the April 7, 2014 summary hearing.

9The applicant’s adjournment request is denied. The summary hearing will proceed as scheduled on April 7, 2014.