O’Rae v. Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2015 HRTO 1237

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Charles O’Rae

Applicant

-and-

The Crown in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

Respondent

-and-

Ontario Provincial Police Association

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: September 17, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1237 Indexed as: O’Rae v. Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Charles O’Rae, Applicant Self-represented

The Crown in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Respondent Jordana Joseph, Counsel

Ontario Provincial Police Association, Intervenor No one appearing

Introduction

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 of this case is scheduled to begin on January 7 and 8, 2016. The Notice of Hearing was issued on July 15, 2015.

3On August 24, 2015, the respondent requested the rescheduling of the hearing because as a result of administrative errors, the respondent counsel who was assigned is not available on the scheduled dates.

4The applicant opposes the request.

5The Requests to re-schedule the hearing is denied. The time lines set out in the Notice of Hearing will be amended as set out below.

6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournment will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The Practice Direction states the following regarding requests for adjournments:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a 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.

7In my view, the respondent reason for requesting this re-scheduling does not constitute an exceptional circumstance as contemplated by the Practice Direction. There is no indication from the respondent that this file cannot be re-assigned for example and given the length of time until the hearing there is no reason that new counsel cannot be assigned and complete the production process in time for the hearing to proceed as scheduled.

8Accordingly the Tribunal makes the following Orders and Directions:

a. The request to adjourn the hearing dates currently scheduled is denied;

b. To the extent not already produced, the parties will deliver to each other all arguably relevant documents in their possession in accordance with Rule 16.1 before October 17, 2016; and

c. The parties will deliver and file the materials required of them under Rule 17.1 in accordance with the directions set out in the Notice of Hearing.

9I am not seized of this case.