Jagica v. Bathurst Towers Inc., 2015 HRTO 1128

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Laslo Jagica

Applicant

-and-

Bathurst Towers Inc., Cromwell Management Inc. and Reynah Pereira

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: August 25, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1128

Indexed as: Jagica v. Bathurst Towers Inc.

1The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing, dated March 18, 2015, scheduling a hearing in the Application on August 31, 2015.

2By letter dated August 24, 2015, the respondents requested an adjournment of the hearing because the parties are currently in settlement discussions, the parties believe that the hearing will take longer than the one day scheduled for it, and a number of the respondents’ witnesses are not available on that date. Counsel for the respondents advises that the applicant is consenting to the request.

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.

5The fact that the parties are engaged in settlement discussions is not a sufficient reason for granting an adjournment. They have several days in which to conclude their ongoing negotiations. In addition, they can opt to participate in mediation/adjudication on the date of the hearing.

6Likewise, the fact that the hearing may take longer than one day is not a sufficient reason for granting an adjournment. While the parties may prefer to have two consecutive days set aside, the Tribunal will lose the one day of hearing time it has allocated to this matter if it acquiesces to the wishes of the parties. In any event, the respondents have indicated that not all of their witnesses are available on that day. Scheduling an additional day will be easier when there are fewer witnesses’ schedules to accommodate.

ORDER

7For all of the above reasons, the adjournment request is denied.