Lattrulo v. Comprehensive Petcare Inc. cob as the Animal Hospital of Unionville, 2015 HRTO 1729

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Leanne Lattrulo

Applicant

-and-

Comprehensive Petcare Inc. cob as the Animal Hospital of Unionville and Ernst Marsig

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: December 23, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1729

Indexed as: Lattrulo v. Comprehensive Petcare Inc. cob as the Animal Hospital of Unionville

1A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled to begin on April 11 and 12, 2016, in Toronto. The Notice of Hearing was issued on October 30, 2015.

2On December 16, 2015, the respondents wrote to the Tribunal requesting an adjournment of the hearing to either earlier or later dates than those scheduled. The reason for the request was that the respondent’s counsel was unavailable for the hearing dates.

3The applicant opposes the adjournment request.

4The request to adjourn this hearing is denied.

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournment will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The Practice Direction states the following regarding requests for adjournments:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a 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 reasons cited by the respondent’s representative are not extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment of the hearing. The parties were consulted about the hearing date and the dates were confirmed in a Notice of Hearing sent to the parties on October 30, 2015. It is not clear how counsel, who have been on the record for some time, did not know that they were out of the country on the scheduled dates at the time they were set or in the 14 day period after the Notice of Hearing was issued.

7The approach taken here has been consistently held by the Tribunal. In Valentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, the Tribunal explained its approach:

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 (now 14) 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 (now 14) days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

8In my view, there is nothing extraordinary about these circumstances. For these reasons, the respondents request to adjourn the hearing is denied.

9I am not seized.