Jude Fernandez v. Vito Tomas, 2014 HRTO 541

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jude Fernandez

Applicant

-and-

Vito Tomas

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: April 15, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 541

Indexed as: Fernandez v. Tomas

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jude Fernandez, Applicant

Self-represented

Vito Thomas, Respondent

Gerald Griffiths, Counsel

1By Notice of Hearing dated February 26, 2014, this Application was scheduled for hearing on July 15, 2014.

2By letter dated March 19, 2014, counsel for the respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because his spouse is expected to give birth on or around the hearing date. The applicant objects to the adjournment request because it was not made within 14 days of the Notice of Hearing and because of his own “personal commitments”.

3The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling reads as follows:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or hearing, described above. 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.

4In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4, the Tribunal explained the reasons for its position on adjournments as follows:

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 [now 14] days after the hearing is scheduled may be denied.

5In my view, the respondent’s counsel has provided the exceptional circumstances necessary to grant the adjournment. Counsel has provided dates in August 2014 to reschedule the hearing. The applicant has not indicated that he is not available on the August dates provided. As such, the matter will be delayed for only a short period of time.

6The adjournment request is granted. The Tribunal will contact the parties to reschedule the hearing.

ORDER

7The hearing scheduled for July 15, 2014 is adjourned.