HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Karima Temor
Applicant
-and-
Hudson’s Bay Company
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Temor v. Hudson’s Bay Company
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Karima Temor, Applicant
No submissions filed
Hudson’s Bay Company, Respondent
Alix Herber, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The hearing is scheduled for September 25, 2015 pursuant to a Notice of Hearing dated April 9, 2015.
3On July 29, 2015, the respondent filed a letter and a Form 26, Request for Summary Hearing (“the SH request”) with the Tribunal, on which the applicant was copied. In the letter, the respondent advises that it has retained new counsel, Ms. Herber. The respondent requests that the Tribunal postpone the hearing until it determines the SH request. In the alternative, it requests that if the SH request is granted, the hearing on the merits be cancelled at that time and rescheduled if the respondent is unsuccessful. It also requests, in the further alternative, that if the SH request is denied, that the Tribunal reschedule the hearing because its new counsel will be out of the country on business related travel on September 25, 2015. It submits that this travel was booked in advance of the hearing on the merits being scheduled and in advance of new counsel being retained. The respondent provided travel confirmation and provided alternative dates upon which new counsel could be made available. These dates are between early to mid-October 2015.
4The applicant’s representative has not filed a response to the SH request or otherwise responded to the respondent’s letter.
The Respondent’s Summary Hearing Request
5Rules 19A.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that upon review of the SH request, and any response to the request, the Tribunal will determine whether to hold a summary hearing on the question of whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed. Furthermore, it states that the Tribunal need not give reasons for a decision to hold or not hold a summary hearing following a party’s request.
6I have considered the SH request filed by the respondent. The SH request is denied and the Application will continue to proceed in the normal course.
The Respondent’s Adjournment Request
7The respondent’s request for an adjournment is also denied.
8The Notice of Hearing dated April 9, 2015 made it clear that the parties had 14 days from its dates to arrange for rescheduling, following which the hearing would be adjourned or rescheduled only in exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments confirms this.
9I appreciate that the respondent’s counsel’s adjournment request was not made just days before the hearing date, that her travel plans were booked in February 2015 and that she provided alternate hearing dates from early to mid-October upon which she is available. There is no information about the applicant’s availability on those dates, and no response from the applicant about the adjournment request.
10However, and more importantly, I do not find that the respondent’s request constitutes an exceptional circumstance to warrant the rescheduling. The respondent’s former counsel was an in-house lawyer and it was to him that the Notice of Hearing was sent. The fact that the respondent decided to retain an external lawyer who was not available on the scheduling hearing date does not constitute an exceptional circumstance such that the hearing date should be adjourned. The Tribunal has dismissed similar adjournment requests where new counsel, who has been retained, is not available on the already scheduled hearing date. See, for example, Amicucci v. York Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 242 at para. 16.
11As the respondent’s adjournment request is denied, the hearing will proceed as scheduled on September 25, 2015.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of August, 2015.
“Signed by”
Alison Renton
Vice-chair