Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Ryan Duffie
Applicant
-and-
Wesbell Technologies Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Duffie v. Wesbell Technologies Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Westbell Technologies Inc., Respondent
Cézanne Charlebois, Counsel
1This Application is scheduled for hearing on July 30, 2014 in Toronto.
2The respondent requests an adjournment of the July 30, 2014 hearing on the basis that it has retained new counsel who is very busy with other hearings the week of the scheduled hearing. The applicant does not consent to the adjournment request.
3For the reasons that follow the adjournment request is denied.
4The Tribunal has made it clear on numerous occasions that adjournments, are not automatically granted. In its Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments, it states that:
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 adjournment, even when all parties consent.
5In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4, the Tribunal explained why, even when there is consent, an adjournment of a scheduled hearing will not be granted absent exceptional circumstances:
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 fourteen] 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 [now fourteen] days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.
6I find that the respondent has not provided an exceptional reason to justify adjourning the hearing at this stage. This matter has been scheduled for hearing since March 6, 2014. The respondent decided to retain the services of a lawyer; however, it should have ensured that the lawyer is able to represent them at the scheduled hearing. The Tribunal has denied requests to adjourn in similar circumstances. Elyas v. APlus Institute, 2010 HRTO 561. In these circumstances, I find that the respondents have not provided an exceptional reason to warrant the adjournment of the scheduled hearing and therefore its Request to adjourn is denied.
7I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of April, 2014.
“signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair