Li Dong Wang v. TS Tech Canada Inc., 2015 HRTO 1503

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Li Dong Wang

Applicant

-and-

TS Tech Canada Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: November 6, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1503

Indexed as: Wang v. TS Tech Canada Inc.

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

2The hearing of this case is scheduled to begin on December 16 and 17, 2015. The Notice of Hearing was issued on July 14, 2015.

3On October 30, 2015, the respondent requested that the case be adjourned. The respondent argues that its former counsel has retired and cannot see the case through. Accordingly, it has had to retain new counsel and believes that there is not adequate time to prepare for the hearing. The applicant appears to have consented to the adjournment.

4The Requests to adjourn and re-schedule the hearing is denied. The time lines set out in the Notice of Hearing will be amended as set out below. I note that the applicant has not yet filed any documents.

5The 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 days 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.

6In my view, the nature of the respondent’s request does not constitute an exceptional circumstance as contemplated by the Practice Direction. The issue in this case seems to be a very simple one – the applicant alleges that he was told that he was too old to work for the respondent by a supervisor who was supposed to train him; that the supervisor did not train him; and the applicant left his employment after three days. I do appreciate that the respondent will require an extension of time to deliver and file their hearing materials. If there are real problems in having witnesses attend the hearing this issue can be addressed in other ways.

7Accordingly, 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 November 23, 2015; and

c. The parties will deliver and file the materials required of them under Rule 17.1 as enumerated in the Notice of Hearing issued on July 14, 2015 (Step Two), before December 10, 2015.

8I am not seized of this case.