Tuleep Fernando v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 HRTO 231

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tuleep Fernando

Applicant

-and-

The Law Society of Upper Canada, The Law Society Foundation,

Marion Boyd, Chris Thomas, and Thomas Conway

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: February 25, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 231

Indexed as: Fernando v. The Law Society of Upper Canada

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s request to adjourn the summary hearing scheduled for February 26, 2015.

2On November 12, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing (Rescheduled) to the parties, which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for February 26, 2015. The Notice also informed them that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments. The Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice, and requests for adjournments thereafter will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness, or representative.

3On February 23, 2015, the applicant filed a letter with the Tribunal, which requested that the summary hearing be adjourned. He stated that for “personal reasons” he was not able to serve and file his submissions in advance of the hearing, and he is also not in a position to participate in the hearing. He also stated that when his personal circumstances change, he will contact the Tribunal and the respondents to determine how to proceed.

4On the same day, the respondents filed letters with the Tribunal, which opposed the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the summary hearing.

5The applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing was made more than 14 days after the Notice of Summary Hearing was issued to the parties. The Tribunal’s approach to late adjournment requests was set out in Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 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 [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 those broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days [now 14 days] that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

6In my view, the applicant’s vague statement that for “personal reasons” he is not in a position to participate in the summary hearing on February 26, 2015 does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance which justifies adjourning the hearing.

7Accordingly, the applicant’s request to adjourn the summary hearing scheduled for February 26, 2015 is denied. The hearing will proceed as scheduled. The applicant is directed to inform the Tribunal and the respondents by no later than 3:00 p.m. today whether he will be attending the hearing. If he informs the Tribunal and the respondents that he will not be attending the hearing, or fails to attend the hearing, the Application will likely be dismissed.