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 13, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1536 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 (the "Code").
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, 2014, the respondent requested that the case be adjourned. The respondent argued that its former counsel had retired and could not see the case through. Accordingly, it had to retain new counsel and believed that there was not adequate time to prepare for the hearing. The applicant appeared to consent to this adjournment request.
4The Request to adjourn was denied in 2015 HRTO 1503.
5The respondent has renewed its request to adjourn. The respondent further advised that its former counsel was forced to retire because of a significant medical problem requiring "life threatening" surgery. The respondent had not disclosed this information in its first request out of concern for former counsel's privacy.
6Although the applicant appeared to consent to the first request, it appears that he does not consent to the renewed request.
7The request to adjourn the hearing is granted.
8The 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.
9In light of the new information provided by the respondent, I am satisfied that the nature of the respondent's request constitutes an exceptional circumstance as contemplated by the Practice Direction. Counsel did not merely retire which one would normally expect to be a planned event to some degree, but appears to have been forced by an emergent medical issue to leave his practice. In the circumstances, it appears that the most fair, just and expeditious course is to adjourn the hearing.
10I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of November, 2015.
"Signed By"
__________________________________
David Muir Vice-chair