Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Andrew Baine Applicant
-and-
York Regional Police Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: October 23, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1420 Indexed As: Baine v. York Regional Police
1A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled to begin on December 14 and 15, 2015 in Toronto.
2On October 20, 2015, the applicant advised that he had retained representation who was unavailable for the hearing dates scheduled. The applicant further advised that the respondent had consented to the adjournment request.
3The request to adjourn this hearing is denied.
4The 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.
5The reasons cited by the applicant’s representative are not extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment of the hearing. The parties were consulted about the hearing date and the dates were confirmed in a Notice of Hearing sent to the parties on July 28, 2015. Where a party changes representatives or retains a representative after the hearing dates have been fixed, it is expected that they will retain a representative who is available on the scheduled date(s).
6This approach has been consistently held by the Tribunal. In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, the Tribunal explained its approach:
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. 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 14] days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.
When a party makes a decision to retain counsel after the notice of hearing has been issued, their “choice” of counsel is limited by the date previously scheduled.
7For these reasons applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing is denied.
8If any party requires relief from the timeline for the filing of the hearing documents, they may request same of the Tribunal if unable to resolve the issue themselves.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of October, 2015.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
David Muir Vice-chair