Chu-Wing Li v. Dickie’s No Frills, 2014 HRTO 608

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Chu-Wing Li

Applicant

-and-

Dickie’s No Frills

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: April 30, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 608

Indexed as: Li v. Dickie’s No Frills

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Chu-Wing Li, Applicant Self-represented,

Dickie’s No Frills, Respondent Jayashree Goswami, Counsel,

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of race and disability.

2A hearing in this matter is scheduled for May 16, 2014. On April 16, 2014 the respondent’s counsel, requested that it be adjourned. The reason given for the request is that counsel “will be preoccupied with a trial starting that week in the Superior Court of Justice”. Counsel indicates that: “As with most cases, I had anticipated that the action that is set to go to trial next month would be settled. However, we are a month away and there has been no settlement.” The applicant opposes the adjournment.

3The Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments provides that requests to reschedule must be made within fourteen (14) days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournments will be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Moreover, it indicates that hearings will not be rescheduled merely because the date is inconvenient for the parties or their representatives.

4In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4, the Tribunal held:

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 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 these broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

5The parties were notified of the hearing into this matter on December 6, 2013. The request for an adjournment is made well beyond the fourteen days after the notice of the hearing. The reason for the request for adjournment appears to be based on the possibility that counsel may have a conflict of dates although that is not certain. In my view, this is not an exceptional circumstance that would justify an adjournment in accordance with the Tribunal’s policies and jurisprudence.

6The request for adjournment is denied.