Alana Longstreet v. Easyfinancial Services, 2015 HRTO 443

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alana Longstreet

Applicant

-and-

Easyfinancial Services

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kevin Cleghorn

Date: April 2, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 443

Indexed as: Longstreet v. Easyfinancial Services

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

) Alana Longstreet, Applicant ) Self-Represented ) ) ) Easyfinancial Services, Respondent ) Laura K.Williams, Counsel ) )

1This is an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment because of disability.

2The Application is scheduled for a hearing on April 29 and 30, 2015. Notice of the hearing dates was forwarded to the parties by letter dated December 5, 2014. The hearing had originally been scheduled for April 7 and 8, 2015 but a timely request for new dates was received from the respondent and granted accordingly.

3On March 9, 2015, the applicant requested a “deferral” of the hearing. I assume that means she is seeking an adjournment.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a hearing… 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.

Where a party seeks to adjourn a previously scheduled mediation or hearing, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises. They must contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing.

The party making the request should contact the Registrar and provide the exceptional circumstances supporting the request and any alternative agreed upon dates. Where the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by email or fax.

5The applicant seeks the adjournment on the basis that she requires further documentary disclosure from the respondent. No notice of that request appears to have been provided to the respondent. This Tribunal responded to her request on March 10, 2015 by directing her to the Rules of Procedure insofar as the production of documents is concerned. Nothing further has been received from the applicant with regard to any Request for an Order During Proceeding.

6The hearing for this matter has been scheduled for nearly four months.The parties have had ample time to prepare for the hearing. The documents which necessitate the request for the adjournment are possibly a long-standing issue for the applicant. However, no formal request has been made to the Tribunal to support any request for production. Any delay in commencing the hearing of this matter impacts on “fair and timely access to justice”.

7As noted above, the issue of production of documents can be dealt with in a manner that need not delay the hearing itself. The parties will be asked to participate in a mediation/adjudication of the Application on the first day scheduled for the hearing in any event.

DECISION

8For all the foregoing reasons, the request for an adjournment is denied, without prejudice to a request for production of documents being made by the applicant on an appropriate basis.