Williams v. Deloitte LLP, 2015 HRTO 264

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shennell Williams
Applicant

-and-

Deloitte LLP
Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri Price
Date: March 5, 2015
Citation: 2015 HRTO 264
Indexed as: Williams v. Deloitte LLP

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Shennell Williams, Applicant
Stephanie Pope, Counsel

Deloitte LLP, Respondent
Kristin Ley, Counsel

1This is an Application under s.34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging that the respondent infringed the applicant’s rights under the Code.

Adjournment request

2On November 14, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing in this matter, advising the parties that the hearing of the Application would take place on April 16 and 17, 2015. The Notice of Hearing advised the parties that if they wished to have the hearing rescheduled, they needed to make a request in this regard within 14 days of the date of the Notice. The parties were advised that requests to adjourn or reschedule the hearing which were made more than 14 days after the date of the Notice would only be granted in “exceptional circumstances”. The Notice also specifically stated that “retaining a new representative who is not available or prepared to proceed on the scheduled date is normally not considered an exceptional circumstance.”

3The November 2014 Notice of Hearing also advised the parties that adjournment requests would be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling, which is available on the Tribunal’s website. The Practice Direction states in relevant part:

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.

4On February 18, 2015, the respondent requested that the Tribunal adjourn the April hearing dates. The primary reason for the request is that the respondent has recently retained counsel who is not available to attend the hearing on the scheduled dates. This is not a basis upon which to grant the adjournment request. As reflected in the Notice of Hearing, the Tribunal has often held that a party’s failure to retain counsel in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that warrants adjournment of the hearing, including when counsel is unavailable or unprepared to proceed on the scheduled date: Pazhaidam v. North York General Hospital, 2011 HRTO 1663; Davie v. PMA Brethour Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1198; Wilson v. York (Regional Municipality), 2009 HRTO 2020; Schenk v. OSAD, 2010 HRTO 446; Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660.

5The respondent also submits that the two April dates that have been scheduled will be insufficient to complete the hearing; and that the hearing should be rescheduled so that it is held on a minimum of four consecutive dates. This is also not an exceptional circumstance that justifies the adjournment of the hearing. The Tribunal’s general practice is to schedule a maximum of two consecutive dates at the start of the hearing, and to schedule additional dates for the continuation of the hearing, if required. In keeping with this, if the hearing of this Application is not completed on the two April dates presently scheduled, additional dates will be scheduled for the continuation, in consultation with the parties.

6For the above reasons, the adjournment request is denied.

7I am not seized of this case.