Sheila Regan v. Hudson’s Bay Company, 2015 HRTO 1650

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sheila Regan

Applicant

-and-

Hudson’s Bay Company

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: December 4, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1650

Indexed as: Regan v. Hudson’s Bay Company

1A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled for January 5, 2016, in Toronto.

2On December 1, 2015, the applicant requested an adjournment of this hearing on the basis that her main witness would be out of town taking care of someone who is sick. The respondent opposes this request on the basis that the applicant has failed to provide a will-say statement for this witness and so there is no material on which the respondent can evaluate whether this witness’ evidence is necessary.

3The adjournment is denied and the hearing will proceed as scheduled.

4In the Notice of Hearing issued on August 10, 2015, the parties were advised as follows:

If you cannot attend the hearing on the date(s) scheduled, you must act within 14 days of the date of this Notice to arrange for rescheduling. After that, a hearing will be adjourned or rescheduled only in exceptional circumstances, even if both parties agree to an adjournment. …

Requests for rescheduling and adjournment will be dealt with in accordance with the Practice Direction on Scheduling located on the HRTO’s website at http://www.hrto.ca/hrto/?q=en/node/46.

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournments will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The Practice Direction states in part 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.

6The reason cited by the applicant is not “extraordinary” in the circumstances of this case. The applicant did not file a witness list or a summary of her witnesses’ testimony by the deadline set out in the Notice of Hearing. Instead, on November 20, 2015, she wrote the following in a brief email to the Tribunal: “As far as witnesses are concerned my friend may be there if she is in town. She is the one who called me during meeting I am trying to contact her to see if she can make it.” This brief passage suggests that the applicant does not regard her friend’s testimony as essential. Indeed, if the sole purpose of this witness’ testimony is to establish the identity of the person who called the applicant during her job interview, I fail to see the relevance of this evidence.

7For this reason the request to adjourn is denied.