Hohman v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, 2015 HRTO 586

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Walter Hohman

Applicant

-and-

Liquor Control Board of Ontario and Jim MacPherson

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: May 6, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 586

Indexed as: Hohman v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of family status and marital status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant requested an adjournment of the second day of hearing that is scheduled for May 28 and 29, 2015.

3He submitted that he has his own business and is scheduled to work at a function on May 29, 2015, but inadvertently had recorded this in his calendar as a Saturday, not realizing it conflicted with the second day scheduled for this hearing.

4The respondents agreed to the adjournment request given the circumstances, but submitted the parties should attend on May 28, 2015 to deal with the respondents’ preliminary issues as set out in their Form 10 Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), dated April 24, 2015.

decision

5The Tribunal’s Confirmation of Hearing Notice states that requests for adjournments will be dealt with according to the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments. This Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing and that the parties need to confer and provide the Tribunal with alternative dates if a rescheduling is being requested. The Practice Direction also states that the Tribunal discourages requests for adjournments outside this 14 day period noting that later requests for adjournment, particularly ones at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Consequently, the Tribunal will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent. The Practice Direction also states that where a party seeks to adjourn a scheduled hearing, they must contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates for the rescheduling of the hearing.

6In this case, I find that the applicant’s inadvertent scheduling conflict meets the test of exceptional circumstances, particularly since he runs his own business and personally must be in attendance at the function on May 29, 2015.

7I also agree with the respondents’ submission that the parties should attend the hearing on May 28, 2015 to deal with preliminary issues. The parties may also participate in mediation-adjudication that day if they consent.

order

8The parties will attend the hearing date of May 28, 2015 and be prepared to deal with the respondents’ preliminary issues as set out in the RFOP.

9The second day scheduled for this hearing, namely May 29, 2015, will be adjourned.

10The timelines for document disclosure will remain the same, and the applicant will deliver to the respondents by May 8, 2015 his witness statements and the documents that he intends to rely on at the hearing, and will file with the Tribunal by no later than May 8, 2015 the witness statements, the documents he intends to rely on at the hearing and a Form 23 Statement of Delivery evidencing delivery on the respondents.