Thomas v. Amelin Property Management, 2015 HRTO 1666

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Cynthia Thomas

Applicant

-and-

Amelin Property Management, Ray Terrell and Morris Alon

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: December 10, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1666 Indexed as: Thomas v. Amelin Property Management

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Cynthia Thomas, Applicant Kevin LaRose, Paralegal

Amelin Property Management, Ray Terrell and Morris Alon, Respondents Bradley Teplitsky, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to occupancy of accommodation because of race, colour, disability and marital status, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2This Interim Decision addresses a request for an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for December 15 and 16, 2015, made by the respondents and consented to by the applicant.

Adjournment Request

3Counsel for the respondents has provided the applicant and the Tribunal with medical reasons, supported by documents, which indicate that he is unable to proceed on the scheduled dates. He has also offered to personally reimburse the applicant for certain costs incurred as a result of the delay caused by his request for an adjournment.

4The applicant has consented to the request.

5The Tribunal’s Practice Directions and case law are clear that adjournments will be granted only in exceptional circumstances. The Practice Direction recognizes the illness of a party, witness or representative may constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting the granting of an adjournment. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that this is an exceptional circumstance.

6The hearing scheduled for December 15 and 16, 2015 will be adjourned and the Tribunal will canvass the parties availability for two dates in February or March 2016.

Costs

7As indicated above, in correspondence to each other and the Tribunal, the parties discuss payment of the applicant’s expenses relating to witnesses scheduled to appear on behalf of the applicant and respondents’ counsel’s willingness to personally reimburse the applicant for those costs.

8This Tribunal has consistently held that it does not have jurisdiction to award costs under the current Code or its Rules: see Macdonald v. Downtown Health Club for Women, 2009 HRTO 1647; Dunn v. United Transportation Union, Local 104, 2008 HRTO 405; Ugbay v. Eston Manufacturing, 2009 HRTO 611; Seguin v. Great Blue Heron Charity Casino, 2009 HRTO 940.

9As a result, the Tribunal makes no finding, ruling or award regarding the applicant’s claim for expenses incurred or the agreement between the applicant and counsel for the respondents.