Kereluk v. Ontario Minor Hockey Association, 2015 HRTO 1637

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christopher Kereluk Applicant

-and-

Ontario Minor Hockey Association Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: December 2, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1637 Indexed as: Kereluk v. Ontario Minor Hockey Association

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Christopher Kereluk, Applicant Self-represented

Ontario Minor Hockey Association, Respondent Adam Dunlop, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing of this matter scheduled for December 9, 2015.

2The applicant requested an adjournment because he was not aware that he might be able to obtain representation through the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (“Centre”). He stated that he contacted the Centre today to seek representation. According to the applicant, the Centre advised him to seek an adjournment so they could review the documents in his case. The respondent took no position with respect to the applicant’s adjournment request.

3The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing in this matter was sent to the parties on July 13, 2015. That Notice advised the parties that requests for adjournments would be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s “Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments” which states in relevant part:

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.

4In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4, the Tribunal held:

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.

5The Tribunal has repeatedly held that a party’s failure to retain counsel in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that warrants adjournment of the hearing.

6The applicant had ample opportunity to retain legal counsel to represent him in this matter. As noted above, the applicant had almost six months since the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to retain legal counsel to represent him at the hearing of the Application. He would have discovered the existence of the Center if he had exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries within this time frame. In particular, I note that the Notice of Mediation that the Tribunal sent to the applicant on February 25, 2014 included information regarding the Centre.

Order

7For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s request for adjournment is denied. No later than 5 PM Friday December 4, 2015, the applicant must confirm with the Tribunal in writing, with a copy to the respondent, that he will attend the hearing on December 9, 2015.