Leslie v. B.K. Autobody Collision Inc., 2015 HRTO 1731

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Hamilton Leslie

Applicant

-and-

B.K. Autobody Collision Inc. and Kulbir Singh Grewal

Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price Date: December 23, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1731 Indexed as: Leslie v. B.K. Autobody Collision Inc.

1As the parties are aware, the hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled to take place at 9:30 a.m., on January 5, 2016, at 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor, Toronto.

Adjournment request

2In a letter dated December 16, 2015, received on December 18, 2015, the respondents requested an adjournment of the upcoming hearing to allow them to retain legal counsel. The respondents, who are self-represented, suggest that they had not realized how "complex" the proceeding before the Tribunal would be until they received two December 2015 Case Assessment Directions from the Tribunal directing them to comply with their obligations to provide the applicant and the Tribunal with the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing and witness statements for the witnesses they intend to call at the hearing, as required by the Tribunal's Rules.

3The applicant opposes the respondents' adjournment request on the basis that the respondents have known about the January 2016 hearing and their disclosure obligations at least since they received the July 2015 Notice of Hearing. In addition to notifying the parties of the time, date and place for the hearing, the Notice of Hearing advised the parties what things they were required to provide to the Tribunal and one another and when they had to provide them.

4According to the Tribunal's "Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments", last-minute requests for adjournments, like this one, will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances. The onus of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist that warrants an adjournment rests on the party seeking the adjournment.

5The respondents were given notice of the January 2016 hearing in July 2015. At that time, the corporate respondent and the individual respondent were also advised that they were required to provide the documents they intended to rely upon at the hearing and witness statements for their witnesses by November 2015. The Tribunal reminded the respondents about their obligations in a Case Assessment Direction dated December 4, 2015, which the respondents neither complied with nor responded to. It was not until December 16, 2015 that the respondents indicated that they wished to have the hearing adjourned so that they could retain a lawyer. However, there is no valid explanation as to why the respondents could not and should not have retained a lawyer in a more timely manner, if they wished to do so. Moreover, there is no suggestion that the respondents took any steps to retain a lawyer to represent them at the January 2016 hearing upon receiving the December 4, 2015 Case Assessment Direction.

6The respondents have not established that there are extraordinary circumstances that warrant the adjournment of the summary hearing. The hearing will proceed as scheduled on January 5, 2016.

Respondent's obligation to provide documents and witness statements

7The respondents continue to be required to provide the applicant and the Tribunal with notice of the evidence they wish to rely upon at the upcoming hearing. In particular, and as previously stated, the respondents are required to provide the following to the applicant's lawyer and the Tribunal as soon as possible and in advance of the January 5, 2016 hearing:

a. a list of the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing;

b. copies of the documents they intend to rely upon; and

c. witness statements for any witnesses they intend to call, briefly summarizing what they expect their witnesses to say when they testify.