Mares v. Checkwell Decision Corporation, 2014 HRTO 549

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Erin Mares

Applicant

-and-

Checkwell Decision Corporation

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: April 16, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 549

Indexed as: Mares v. Checkwell Decision Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Checkwell Decision Corporation, Respondent

Alix Herber, Counsel

1By Notice of Hearing dated February 25, 2014, the Application was scheduled for hearing on June 16, 2014.

2By letter dated March 10, 2014, the respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because its human resources manager, a key witness in the Application, was on an extended pregnancy and parental leave from April 2014 until May 21, 2015. The applicant did not respond to this adjournment request

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, it is not fair, just or expeditious to adjourn the hearing in this matter for almost one year. There are several reasons for this finding. One, it may well be that another human resources witness can testify on behalf of the respondent. Two, it is unlikely that the hearing will be completed in one day. The hearing can proceed on June 16, 2014 with the applicant’s case and any additional witnesses the respondent intends to call, other than the human resources manager who is on leave. Three, the respondent can renew its adjournment request before the adjudicator assigned to hear this matter after the close of the applicant’s case. The adjudicator will be in a better position to determine the importance of the evidence of the human resources manager and in turn, in a better position to determine any adjournment request that may be made at that time.

6If the parties agree, the Tribunal is prepared to engage in mediation/adjudication of the Application at the outset of the hearing pursuant to Rule 15A, but all parties must be prepared to proceed if there is no agreement to mediation/adjudication or a settlement is not reached.

7The adjournment request is denied. The parties must provide their Step One and Step Two disclosure as set out in the Notice of Hearing by May 16, 2014.

ORDER

8The adjournment request is denied. The parties must provide their Step One and Step Two disclosure by May 16, 2014. The hearing will proceed on June 16, 2014.