Wilson v. Ives, 2015 HRTO 1435

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Donna Wilson

Applicant

-and-

Jillian Ives

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Natalia Wilson by her Litigation Guardian Donna Wilson

Applicant

-and-

Jillian Ives

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: October 27, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1435

Indexed as: Wilson v. Ives

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing scheduled for tomorrow.

2On August 19, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for October 28, 2015. The Notice also informed them that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments. The Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice, and requests for adjournments thereafter will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness, or representative.

3Yesterday afternoon, the applicant sent the Tribunal a letter which requested that the hearing be adjourned and rescheduled because on October 21, 2015, she was advised by a lawyer that the lawyer would not be representing her at the hearing. Therefore, she stated, she needs an extension of time to retain legal counsel for the hearing.

4Today, the respondent sent the Tribunal an email opposing the applicant’s adjournment request because she wants finality and does not want the process to be delayed. She also stated that the applicant has been aware of the date of the hearing for some time and has had sufficient time to retain legal counsel.

5The applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing was made more than 14 days after the Notice of Hearing was issued to the parties. The Tribunal’s approach to late adjournment requests was set out in Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 (”Vallentyne”) at para. 4:

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 days [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 those broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days [now 14 days] that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

6The Tribunal has generally held that a party’s failure to retain legal counsel in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that warrants the adjournment of the hearing, including when counsel is unavailable or unprepared to proceed on the scheduled date. See, for example, Pazhaidam v. North York General Hospital, 2011 HRTO 1663; Davie v. PMA Brethour Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1198; Wilson v. York (Regional Municipality), 2009 HRTO 2020; Schenk v. OSAD, 2010 HRTO 446; and Vallentyne, above.

7In the case at hand, the applicant failed to retain legal counsel in a timely manner. I see no reason to deviate from the Tribunal’s standard approach. Accordingly, the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing is denied.