<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
**B E T W E E N:**
Christopher Cunneen
Applicant
-and-
Tri County Hockey and Jonathan Cameron
Respondents
---
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## INTERIM DECISION
**Adjudicator:** Dawn J. Kershaw
**Date:** December 16, 2015
**Citation:** 2015 HRTO 1692
**Indexed as:** Cunneen v. Tri County Hockey and Jonathan Cameron
---
​[1]​ A hearing in respect of this Application, filed under the [Human Rights Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html), R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, is scheduled for January 4, 2016, in London.
​[2]​ The respondents filed a Form 10 Request for an Order During Proceedings on December 15, 2015 for an adjournment of the hearing on the heels of my Case Assessment Direction, dated December 14, 2015 in which the respondents were given a further extension to December 18, 2015 to provide their documents on which they intend to rely at the hearing ("hearing documents").
​[3]​ The Notice of Hearing dated July 27, 2015 had advised the parties that their hearing documents had to be filed by November 20, 2015. Because the respondents failed to comply, I issued a November 26, 2015 Case Assessment Direction advising the respondents to file their hearing documents by no later than December 7, 2015.
​[4]​ On December 7, 2015, the respondents requested an extension to file hearing documents, but did not advise how long an extension was requested. Those submissions were sought, and the respondents advised they wished an additional 30 days to submit hearing documents.
​[5]​ In a December 14, 2015 Case Assessment Direction, I pointed out to the respondents that the request for an additional 30 days went beyond the hearing dates set in this matter. These dates have been set since July 27, 2015. I granted the respondents until December 18, 2015 to provide their hearing documents.
​[6]​ In response to the December 14, 2015 Case Assessment Direction, the respondents filed this request for an adjournment of the hearing.
​[7]​ The respondents' representative requests an adjournment because she was retained on December 1, 2015 and does not have sufficient time to prepare for the hearing. She submits the respondents did not know how to proceed with this matter and had been searching for a representative that could represent them at an affordable cost since the inception of the Application.
​[8]​ The applicant filed a Form 11 Response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings on December 15, 2015 objecting to the respondents' adjournment request. The applicant submits that a request for an adjournment outside the ordinary time limit for rescheduling requests should be granted only in extraordinary circumstances, and the onus is on the party seeking the adjournment to establish the extraordinary circumstances that warrant an adjournment. The applicant relies on Myers v. William Osler Health System, [2015 HRTO 1407](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2015/1407) ("Myers") for the proposition that retaining counsel at the last minute does not constitute exceptional circumstances.
## Decision
​[9]​ The Tribunal's Confirmation of Hearing Notice states that requests for adjournments will be dealt with according to the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments. This Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing and that the parties need to confer and provide the Tribunal with alternative dates if a rescheduling is being requested.
​[10]​ The Practice Direction also states that The Tribunal discourages requests for adjournments outside this 14 day period noting that later requests for adjournment, particularly ones at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Consequently, the Tribunal will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.
​[11]​ As stated in Myers at paragraph [10](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2015/1407), "last minute retention of counsel does not constitute exceptional circumstances".
## Order
​[12]​ The respondents' request for an adjournment is denied.
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of December, 2015.
"Signed By"
__________________________________
Dawn J. Kershaw
Vice-chair
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel