HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Johnson Aziga
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Theeren Beecroft, Dr. Anita Grewal and Ken Milligan
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mark Hart
Indexed as: Aziga v. Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
1This is an Application dated November 1, 2012 and filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, association with a person identified by a protected ground and reprisal or threat of reprisal.
2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the preliminary hearing scheduled for May 26, 2014. The respondents do not consent to the adjournment. By letter dated April 11, 2014, the Tribunal notified the parties by letter that the adjournment had been granted and the preliminary hearing would be re-scheduled for a later date, with reasons to follow. These are those reasons.
3By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated February 10, 2014, the Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that a preliminary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis of delay. In advance of the preliminary hearing, the applicant was directed to serve on the respondents and file with the Tribunal specifics or particulars relating to the allegations raised in the Application as set out in the CAD, together with any further submissions and any caselaw regarding his delay in filing his Application. This was to be done within 30 days of the date of the CAD, or by March 12, 2014.
4By letter dated February 25, 2014, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Hearing to the parties confirming that the preliminary hearing was scheduled for May 26, 2014. In accordance with the Tribunal’s standard practice, the parties were advised that if any party could not attend the hearing on the date scheduled, the party must act within 14 days to arrange for re-scheduling.
5In response, the applicant sent a letter to the Tribunal dated March 3, 2014 stating that he was unable to attend the hearing as scheduled or provide an alternate date within eight weeks of the scheduled date, and further was unable to comply with the deadline set out in the CAD to provide particulars and submissions. In essence, the applicant states in his letter that in order to provide the specifics or particulars that he has been directed to provide, he needs to access certain documents which, in hard copy, are in the possession of his former legal counsel and which, in electronic copy, are on a “memory stick” in his possession. With regard to the hard copy of these documents, the applicant states that he has requested these documents from his former legal counsel, but former legal counsel has refused to provide them. With regard to the electronic copy, the applicant states that, while he is allowed access to a computer for a limited time while in prison, he is not allowed to download the contents of his memory stick. As a result of these difficulties, the applicant states that he will need at least six months from the date of his letter to prepare and produce the material for the hearing.
6The 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.
7I note that the applicant’s request for re-scheduling was made by him within the 14 day period allowed by the Tribunal. That, however, is not a sufficient basis to grant a six month delay in scheduling the preliminary hearing or an extension of time to file the materials the applicant was directed to provide pursuant to the CAD.
8I appreciate the difficulties that are confronted by the applicant in preparing for the hearing and filing materials as a result of his incarceration. But that does not mean that the preliminary hearing in this matter can be delayed indefinitely. I am nonetheless prepared to grant the applicant the six month period that he has requested in order to prepare the material he was directed to provide pursuant to the CAD, with the preliminary hearing to be scheduled for a later date that affords the respondents a reasonable opportunity to file materials in response.
9Within this six month period, I expect the applicant to make diligent efforts either to secure the documentation that he says he requires in order to provide the specifics or particulars requested, or to otherwise comply with the requirement to provide his materials for the preliminary hearing. These steps may include: (1) filing a Request for Order on notice to his former legal counsel seeking an order for production of documents from a third party; (2) making every effort to obtain a printed copy of the material on his memory stick, including making a request for the correctional facility to make a copy of these documents or for permission to provide the memory stick to a third party for this purpose; and/or (3) even without the aid of this documentation, seeking to the best of his ability to provide the specifics or particulars requested in the CAD.
ORDER
10For the foregoing reasons, I hereby make the following order:
a. By no later than September 3, 2014, the applicant shall deliver and file specifics or particulars relating to the allegations raised in the Application as set out in the Case Assessment Direction dated February 10, 2014, together with any further submissions and any caselaw regarding his delay in filing this Application;
b. By no later than October 3, 2014, the respondents shall deliver and file any submissions and caselaw in response to the Application and the applicant’s submissions;
c. By no later than October 17, 2014, the applicant shall deliver and file any submissions in reply; and
d. The preliminary hearing in this matter shall be re-scheduled to the earliest available date on or after October 20, 2014.
Dated at Toronto, this 30^th^ day of April, 2014.
“Signed by”
Mark Hart
Vice-chair