<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
B E T W E E N:
Anita Sharma
Applicant
-and-
Securitas Canada Ltd. and Milroy Mariampillai
Respondents
-and-
United Steel Workers, Local 5296
Intervenor
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
INTERIM DECISION
______________________________________________________________________
Adjudicator: Mark Hart
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
Date: April 24, 2014
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
Citation: 2014 HRTO 583
<!--mc:cls:cover-line-->
Indexed as: Sharma v. Securitas Canada Ltd.
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
[1] This is an Application filed under [s. 34](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html#sec34_smooth) of the [Human Rights Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html), R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment.
[2] The hearing in this matter is scheduled to proceed in Toronto on April 28, 2014. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the hearing, which is opposed by the respondents.
[3] On April 12, 2014, the applicant sent e-mail correspondence to the Tribunal stating that she is “under extreme pressure and depression” and had to take time off work because she is “really unwell and sick”. She requests that the hearing date be postponed until July or August 2014, as it will be “too much trauma for [her] to deal with at the moment because of [her] severe ill health”. She states that she needs “time to recover and completely heal”. With her adjournment request, the applicant provided a form letter from her doctor authorizing her absence from work. The copy of the note provided is extremely difficult to read, but appears to authorize the applicant’s absence from work from sometime in January 2014 to a date in early July 2014.
[4] The respondents oppose the adjournment request. They submit that the ongoing delay is prejudicial and the medical note provided fails to substantiate the reasons for the request. The respondents state that constant adjournments do nothing to advance justice and only cause stress and anxiety and costs to the corporate and individual respondent.
[5] The 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.
[6] The allegation at issue in this matter dates back to April 2010, which is now some four years ago, and relates to a phone conversation the applicant had at that time with the personal respondent, during which it is alleged that he made a discriminatory comment about her mental health. I agree with the respondents that further delay in this matter will not assist the quality of the evidence in terms of the memories of the parties involved.
[7] At the same time, the applicant has provided a medical note confirming an inability to work for an extended period of time. While this medical note is lacking in particulars and is addressed to the question of whether the applicant is able to work as opposed to whether she is able to attend the hearing, I am prepared to accept at this time that the applicant’s inability to work would impair her ability to attend and effectively participate in the hearing.
[8] The respondents submit that the applicant previously had misled the Tribunal in relation to her failure to attend mediation on June 12, 2013. When the applicant failed to attend mediation without prior notice to the Tribunal or the parties, the Tribunal required her to provide an explanation for her failure to attend. In response, the applicant provided a medical note dated June 27, 2013 indicating that she was unable to work from June 9 to 13, 2013. The respondents note that the applicant was not scheduled to work during this period, and in fact worked on the day immediately preceding this period and the day immediately following this period. In my view, this is an insufficient basis to conclude that the applicant in fact was not ill during the period from June 9 to 13, 2013.
[9] In all of the circumstances, I am prepared to afford the applicant the benefit of the doubt that she currently is unwell and unable to attend the hearing scheduled for April 28, 2014. As a result, I am prepared to grant the adjournment and to re-schedule the hearing for a date in July or August 2014. The parties will be canvassed by the Tribunal for their availability.
[10] Having said that, the hearing in this matter cannot be delayed indefinitely. In the future, if the applicant is unable to attend the hearing for medical reasons, she is required to provide a detailed medical note which specifically addresses the issue of whether she is able to attend and participate in the hearing, and to provide reasons to support any stated inability to do so. Failure to provide such a note will result in any further request for an adjournment being denied.
## ORDER
[11] For the foregoing reasons, the hearing currently scheduled for April 28, 2014 is hereby cancelled, and will be re-scheduled for a date in July or August 2014.
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
Dated at Toronto, this 24<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2014.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
Mark Hart
Vice-chair
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel