Edwards v. Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, 2015 HRTO 1573

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Natalie Edwards

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri Price

Date: November 19, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1573

Indexed as: Edwards v. Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association

1This is an Application under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) in which the applicant alleges that the respondent infringed her rights under the Code.

2The Application is scheduled to be heard in Toronto on January 21 and 22, 2016.

3On November 16, 2015, the applicant requested that the January 2016 hearing be postponed to late March or April 2016 for medical reasons. In support of her adjournment request, the applicant filed a medical report from her doctor, which states that the applicant is currently under treatment for a medical condition that is interfering with her ability to deal with day-to-day matters. The applicant’s doctor indicates that the applicant’s medical condition is expected to improve in the near future and recommends postponing the hearing for two months.

4The respondent opposes the adjournment request and asserts that it is nothing more than a “delay tactic”. It submits that the applicant’s medical condition is not an exceptional circumstance that justifies the rescheduling of the hearing. The respondent points out that the applicant had the medical condition in question when she filed the Application and when the Tribunal notified the parties of the January 2016 hearing dates. Relying on the Tribunal’s decision in Mancebo-Munoz v. NCO Financial Services Corporation, 2013 HRTO 758, the respondent submits that the applicant has not explained how her medical condition has changed, thereby necessitating an adjournment of the hearing, and that the adjournment should therefore be denied.

5Finally, the respondent submits that it would be prejudiced by the adjournment of the January 2016 hearing dates because it has made arrangements to have its witnesses available to testify on those dates and has also rescheduled its regular board meeting to “facilitate this hearing.” The respondent submits that some of its witnesses may not be available on the alternate April 2016 hearing dates proposed by the applicant.

6As set out in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling:

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 the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant the applicant’s request that the January 2016 hearing dates be adjourned. The applicant has provided a medical report from her doctor which confirms to my satisfaction that the applicant’s medical condition is likely to interfere with the applicant’s ability to prepare for and participate in the hearing if it proceeds as scheduled in January 2016. The illness of a party is specifically identified in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction as one of the “exceptional circumstances” in which the Tribunal will adjourn a hearing. In my view, it would be unreasonable to force the applicant on in the circumstances.

8Moreover, I am not persuaded that the fact that the respondent has already arranged for its witnesses to attend the January hearing or rescheduled a board meeting means that the respondent would be prejudiced by the adjournment of the hearing, particularly since the hearing is still more than two months away.

9As for the respondent’s submission that it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to grant the adjournment request unless the applicant establishes that something about her medical condition has changed, I cannot agree. Notwithstanding the Tribunal’s decision in Mancebo-Munoz, I do not see the issue as being whether the applicant’s medical condition has changed. In my view, just because the applicant was able to file her Application while she had a particular medical condition, it does not follow that her medical condition will not interfere with her ability to prepare for and participate in litigation. The issue is whether, based on the information available, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to postpone the hearing or to require the applicant to proceed on the dates scheduled. For the reasons given above, I find that it is appropriate to postpone the hearing.

10In sum, the January 21 and 22, 2016 hearing dates are adjourned.

11The Tribunal will schedule two alternate dates as soon as practicable on or after March 31, 2016, in consultation with the parties.

12I am not seized of this case.