Lewis v. Riverdale Housing Co-operative, 2015 HRTO 423

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Terri-Ann Lewis Applicant

-and-

Riverdale Housing Co-operative, Co-op Housing Federation of Toronto, and Yvette Burke Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: March 31, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 423 Indexed as: Lewis v. Riverdale Co-operative Homes

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Terri-Ann Lewis, Applicant Joseph Kary, Counsel

Riverdale Housing Co-operative, Co-op Housing Federation of Toronto, and Yvette Burke, Respondents Luke J. Saites, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s request to adjourn the summary hearing scheduled for April 8, 2015.

2On January 22, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the summary hearing was scheduled for April 8, 2015. The Notice also informed the parties 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 made after that time will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness, or representative.

3On February 3, 2015, the applicant requested that the summary hearing be adjourned.

4This was treated as a timely request to reschedule and was granted. The applicant was directed to canvass 5 mutually agreeable hearing dates with the other parties and provide the dates to the Tribunal by February 13, 2015.

5On February 10, 2015, respondents’ counsel emailed indicating that the applicant now wished to proceed on April 8, 2015. Counsel asked that the April 8, 2015 date be restored.

6The Tribunal agreed. On February 13, 2015 the Tribunal confirmed the summary hearing in this matter would proceed at the date and time contained in its January 22, 2015 Notice.

7On March 21, 2015, applicant’s counsel emailed indicating that he had been recently retained and asking to adjourn the summary hearing because he is required to appear on a previously scheduled matter at the same time.

8The respondents oppose the adjournment request.

9In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 4, the Tribunal stated as follows:

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.

10Applicants are not required to have a lawyer represent them during the Tribunal’s proceedings and many applicants are self-represented. The applicant had indicated that she was seeking legal representation when she made her earlier adjournment request on February 3, 2015. However, the applicant then agreed to proceed with the summary hearing on April 8, 2015 and the parties were notified on February 13, 2015 that the summary hearing would proceed on April 8, 2015. The applicant clearly had notice of the April 8, 2015 date for summary hearing when the Notice was sent to the parties on January 22, 2015. The applicant could have retained counsel earlier so that the scheduling conflict could have been avoided.

11The applicant appears to have just recently retained counsel to represent her. The Tribunal has held that a party’s decision to retain counsel after the hearing has been scheduled is not an “extraordinary circumstance” justifying an adjournment simply because counsel is unavailable or unprepared: Wilson v. York (Regional Municipality), 2009 HRTO 2020.

12It is clear that there is nothing extraordinary about the applicant’s circumstances. There is no valid reason to grant an adjournment.

ORDER

13The applicant’s request to adjourn the summary hearing is denied. The Summary Hearing will proceed as scheduled on April 8, 2015 at 1:30 pm. The parties are reminded to review the Notice of Summary Hearing for the telephone call in information.