Debra Zalter v. Corporation of the Town of Ajax, 2014 HRTO 757

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Debra Zalter

Applicant

-and-

Corporation of the Town of Ajax

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: May 28, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 757

Indexed as: Zalter v. Ajax (Town)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Debra Zalter, Applicant

Self-represented

Ajax (Town), Respondent

Andrew Zabrovsky, Counsel

1The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing, dated February 26, 2014, scheduling a hearing in the Application on July 15, 2014.

2By email dated May 10, 2014, the applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing because her lawyer is away all of July on vacation and her witness is in Romania until September. The respondent objected to this adjournment request, and the applicant responded to the respondent’s letter of objection with a further email.

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.

5As noted by the respondent, the applicant did not identify the name of the lawyer to whom she is referring in her initial requirest. Although the applicant responded to the respondent’s submissions, she continued to not disclose the identity of the lawyer. There is no indication that she has, in fact, retained this individual. In any event, when an applicant retains a lawyer after a Notice of Hearing has been issued, the applicant is expected to retain someone who is available on the scheduled hearing date.

6Similarly, the applicant has not identified the witness whom she says is in Romania, and has provided no explanation to the Tribunal why this witness’s evidence is required.

ORDER

7Accordingly, the adjournment request is denied. The parties are reminded of their obligation to provide disclosure and filing of witness statements and documents by June 2, 2014, as set out on p. 2 of the Notice of Hearing.