Katelyn Bedard v. Crabby Joe’s Tap & Grill, 2015 HRTO 454

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Katelyn Bedard

Applicant

-and-

Crabby Joe’s Tap & Grill

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: April 8, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 454

Indexed as: Bedard v. Crabby Joe’s Tap & Grill

introduction

1A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled for May 4, 2015 in Sarnia.

2By Notice of Hearing, dated November 28, 2014, the parties were advised that they each were to provide to the other party a copy of their arguably relevant documents by December 19, 2014. By email dated February 20, 2015, the respondent advised the Tribunal that the applicant had not complied.

3The parties also were to provide to each other and file with the Tribunal their witness statements and the documents upon which they intend to rely at the hearing by no later than March 20, 2015. The respondent has complied, but the applicant has not.

4On March 25, 2015, the applicant requested by way of e-mail an adjournment and extension to file her hearing documents.

5The applicant advised she has not had time to prepare her hearing documents due to circumstances beyond her control, but she provided no other detail. The respondent opposed the applicant’s request.

ADJOURNMENT

6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling states as follows about adjournment requests:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournment outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or hearing, described above. Requests for adjournment, 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. When the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by email or fax.

7As set out in the Practice Direction, and as confirmed in the Tribunal’s decisions, adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal has explained its rationale for taking such positions in a number of cases including Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660. At para. 4, the Tribunal explained why, even when there is consent, an adjournment of a scheduled hearing will not be granted absent exceptional circumstances:

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 proceedings must consider, but the fact that Tribunal time reserved for the resolution of those parties’ disputes 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 [now fourteen] days after the hearing is scheduled may be denied. The Tribunal has balanced the interests of the parties in having hearings scheduled according to their and counsel’s availability with these broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five [now fourteen] days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

8The Notice of Hearing was sent out on November 28, 2014. The applicant has had ample time to prepare for the hearing.

9The Tribunal succinctly set out the reason why not all adjournments can be granted in Mohammad-Zadeh v. Davis Henderson Limited Partnership by its general partner Davis Henderson G.P. Inc., 2013 HRTO 894, as follows:

What may not be readily apparent to parties is that every adjournment causes a loss of hearing days which not only affects the Tribunal but also affects other parties who must wait longer to have applications heard. The Tribunal receives numerous requests for adjournments by applicants shortly before hearings in circumstances very similar to those in the present case. If all of these adjournment requests were granted, parties to applications would have to wait considerably longer to have applications heard and decided by the Tribunal. This would lead to a gradual decline in the effectiveness of human rights adjudication and enforcement in the province over time.

10The applicant has provided no reasons for an adjournment that would constitute exceptional circumstances and it does not warrant the hearing being adjourned. Accordingly, the applicant’s request for adjournment is denied.

decision and next steps

11The applicant’s request for an adjournment is denied.

12By no later than April 17, 2015, the applicant must deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal the documents she intends to rely upon at the hearing, a list of her witnesses and a brief statement describing what her witnesses will say when they testify. The applicant must also deliver to the respondents her arguably relevant documents and file with the Tribunal a Form 23 Statement of Delivery confirming delivery to the respondent. If the applicant has not complied with these directions by April 17, 2015, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

13The applicant must submit a witness statement for herself, assuming she intends to testify at the hearing. However, if the applicant only intends to testify about the facts already contained in her Application, it is sufficient for her to confirm this in writing by April 17, 2015.

14If the applicant does not communicate with the Tribunal at all by April 17, 2015, her case may be dismissed as abandoned.

15Because the applicant to date has failed to comply with her Rules 16 and 17 disclosure obligations, if the applicant does not comply by April 17, 2015, she will not be allowed to call witnesses and/or rely on any documentation at the hearing.