HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Changhyun Park Applicant
-and-
University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Bram Samaroo and Ryan Pitcher Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: December 17, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1705 Indexed as: Park v. University of Ontario Institute of Technology
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Changhyun Park, Applicant Self-represented
University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Respondent Cheryl Foy, Counsel
Bram Samaroo and Ryan Pitcher, Respondents Christopher McClelland, Counsel
1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of race, colour, ethnic origin and disability. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request for adjournment of the hearing of this matter, which is scheduled for January 28 and 29, 2016, and to amend the disclosure deadlines under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, accordingly.
2The applicant made his request in a letter filed by e-mail on December 9, 2015. The applicant submitted that he has a disability and cannot function under duress. The applicant submitted that because of his disability he requires an inordinate amount of time to prepare for the hearing of his Application. The applicant stated that his condition has worsened recently and he has been unable to perform his daily tasks and school duties. The applicant also submitted that his original legal representative withdrew and that he located another representative. The applicant stated that he sent information for his representative to review in September 2015, but the representative has unfortunately been unable to conduct the review because of ill health. Finally, the applicant submitted that he will be overwhelmed with school work, as his next semester is scheduled to begin on January 5, 2016. The applicant attached a letter from his doctor, dated October 7, 2015, which recommended that the applicant not return to school for the fall 2015 semester due to health and disability concerns.
3By e-mail message dated December 9, 2015, counsel for the individual respondents stated that the individual respondents consent to the adjournment request.
4The organizational respondent replied to the request to adjourn in an e-mail message dated December 10, 2015. The organizational respondent opposes the request. The organizational respondent noted that this is the applicant’s second adjournment request. The organizational respondent submitted that there is no merit to the applicant’s position that his studies are overwhelming him and no evidence to support it. The organizational respondent submitted that the applicant has had ample time to organize his documentation.
5The applicant replied to the organizational respondent’s submissions by e-mail message dated December 10, 2015. The applicant submitted that the health of his representative is beyond his control, as was the fact that his first representative withdrew from this matter. The organizational respondent made a brief reply by e-mail on December 11, 2015 in which it reiterated that the applicant has had a very long time to prepare his documents.
Analysis and Decision
6For the reasons that follow, the request to adjourn is denied.
7The 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 Confirmation of Hearing and that outside that time adjournments will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances, such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Accordingly, the Tribunal grants adjournment sparingly regardless of the consent of the other parties. In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, The Tribunal stated at paragraph 4:
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.
8Based on the information provided by the applicant thus far, I am unable to conclude that extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant adjournment of the hearing. The applicant submitted that his disability causes his to spend an inordinate amount of time in preparing for the hearing of this matter. First, as the organizational respondent noted, the applicant has had a great deal of time to prepare and file the documents required under the Tribunal’s Rules. Second, the medical note, consisting of a single sentence, provided by the applicant does not address the issue of whether the applicant’s disability prevents him from adequately preparing for and participating in the hearing. The applicant has not provided sufficient information to support his submission that adjournment is necessary to accommodate his disability. The Tribunal may revisit this decision should the applicant provide more detailed medical information regarding his disability-related restrictions.
9The applicant’s original representative withdrew several months ago and the new representative he identified in September 2015 has not participated on the applicant’s behalf in this matter. In these circumstances, I cannot conclude that the unavailability of the applicant’s new representative amounts to an extraordinary circumstance. The fact that the applicant is returning to his studies in January 2016 is not a proper basis for granting an adjournment. Most applicants have commitments such as work or study.
10The request to adjourn is denied. The deadlines for complying with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules remain unchanged.
Dated at Toronto, this 17^th^ day of December, 2015.
“Signed By”
__________________________________
Douglas Sanderson Vice-chair