Minogue v. The Peel District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1607

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Debra Minogue

Applicant

-and-

The Peel District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: November 26, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1607

Indexed as: Minogue v. The Peel District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Debra Minogue, Applicant

Self-represented

Peel District School Board, Respondent

Roy Filion, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to adjourn the preliminary hearing scheduled for December 11, 2015.

2The respondent opposes the applicant’s request.

3On October 13, 2015, the Tribunal sent to the parties a Notice of Preliminary Hearing advising that the hearing was scheduled to take place in Toronto, on December 11, 2015. The Notice advised the parties that if they could not attend the hearing on the scheduled date, they were to within 14 days of the Notice, arrange for rescheduling. It stated that “After that, a hearing will be adjourned or rescheduled only in exceptional circumstances” and advised that requests for rescheduling and adjournment would be dealt with in accordance with the Practice Direction on Scheduling, on the Tribunal’s website.

4The Practice Direction on requests to adjourn or reschedule reads as follows:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or 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.

Where a party seeks to adjourn a previously scheduled mediation or hearing, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises. They must contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing.

The party making the request should contact the Registrar and provide the exceptional circumstances supporting the request and any alternative agreed upon dates. Where the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by email or fax.

5In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4, the Tribunal explained why, even when there is consent, an adjournment of a scheduled hearing will not be granted absent exceptional circumstances:

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 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 days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

6The applicant sent an email to the Tribunal on November 23, 2015, advising that the parties are engaging in settlement discussions, and submitting that a “two week extension” is required in order for the parties to continue their settlement efforts. She also states that her representative is unavailable to attend the hearing on December 11, 2015, and requests an “extension of at least two weeks or 10 business days” for that reason also. She notes that the respondent does not consent to an adjournment of the December 11, 2015 hearing date.

7The respondent wrote to the Tribunal on November 24, 2015, confirming that it does not agree to adjourn the scheduled hearing date.

8The applicant has been aware of the scheduled hearing date since October 13, 2015, and has had the opportunity to prepare for the hearing or to retain legal counsel in sufficient time to prepare. Retaining counsel late in the day has not been viewed as a legitimate reason to grant an adjournment. Further, the Tribunal has not viewed a request for more time to engage in settlement discussions as an exceptional circumstance. See for example, Kostrikov v. York Condominium Corporation #201, 2012 HRTO 458; Paris v. Elizabeth Fry Society of Ottawa, 2012 HRTO 164; Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 (see also paragraph 5) and Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 534.

9In this case, I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided a reason that would justify granting an adjournment. As there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant adjournment of this hearing, the applicant’s request to adjourn the scheduled hearing days is denied. The preliminary hearing will proceed on the date scheduled.

10I also note that this matter was the subject of an Interim Decision, Minogue v. Peel District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1268. Among other things, in that Interim Decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file with the Tribunal and a copy to the respondent, better particulars with respect to the dates of allegations contained in her original Application within 14 days. That deadline has now passed and the applicant has not complied with that direction.

ORDERS

11The Tribunal directs as follows:

1. The applicant’s request to adjourn the December 11, 2015 hearing date is denied;

2. The applicant is directed to file with the Tribunal and a copy to the respondent with the particulars referenced in the above-noted Interim Decision in this matter, by December 4, 2015; and,

3. The parties shall deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal copies of any further documents, witness lists or cases they intend to rely upon for this portion of the hearing no later than December 4, 2015. If any party intends to call witnesses for this portion of the hearing, a summary of the witness’ intended evidence must also be filed and delivered by December 4, 2015.

12I am not seized.