Pelletier v. 2091174 Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 622

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christina Pelletier

Applicant

-and-

2091174 Ontario Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: May 13, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 622

Indexed as: Pelletier v. 2091174 Ontario Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Christina Pelletier, Applicant

George Pelletier, Representative

2091174 Ontario Inc., Respondent

Helen Pelton, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of family status and marital status.

2A hearing in this matter is scheduled for May 22, 2015. The hearing date was set by way of a Notice of Hearing dated December 22, 2014.

3On April 29, 2015, Ms. Pelton contacted the Tribunal and advised that she had been contacted by the respondent because it wished to retain her on this matter. Ms. Pelton requested an adjournment of the hearing because she will be in the middle of a three-week trial on May 22, 2015.

4On May 4, 2015, Ms. Pelton contacted the Tribunal again to advise that it is the respondent’s intention to call Marisa Marrazzo as a witness, however, Ms. Marrazzo is not available to attend on the scheduled hearing date for medical reasons. Ms. Pelton submitted this created a more pressing reason for the respondent’s adjournment request.

5The applicant opposes the adjournment request.

6For the reasons that follow, the request for adjournment is denied.

Decision

7The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states, in part:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournment outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a hearing, described above. 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.

8In addition, on the specific issue of unavailability of counsel, in Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 534 at paragraph 6, the Tribunal held that the unavailability of counsel was not an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment:

The decision of a party to retain counsel after a hearing is scheduled is not the type of circumstance that would justify a request for an adjournment. Absent exceptional circumstances, a party must find counsel who is available on the date already scheduled…

9The respondent has been aware of the hearing date since December 22, 2014. It is the Tribunal’s expectation that parties retain counsel who is available to attend on the scheduled hearing date. In this case, the respondent waited until three weeks before the hearing to contact legal counsel. The fact that legal counsel is unavailable to attend a hearing in three weeks’ time does not constitute an exceptional circumstance upon which to grant an adjournment.

10The respondent also asks for an adjournment because it intends to call Ms. Marrazzo as a witness and she is not available to attend the hearing for medical reasons. It is not clear to me whether Ms. Marrazzo’s evidence is relevant to the issues before me as it concerns a similar complaint filed by the applicant against a different respondent. The applicant has also raised issues concerning the confidentiality of this other matter.

11The fact that Ms. Marrazzo is not available to attend the hearing on May 22, 2015 is not a sufficient reason to grant the adjournment. At the commencement of the hearing, I will hear submissions from the parties on whether Ms. Marrazzo can give evidence. In the event I rule her evidence is admissible, a further hearing date will be scheduled to hear her evidence or alternatively, her evidence will be heard by teleconference. If I rule her evidence is not admissible, the hearing can be completed on May 22, 2015.

12The parties are advised of the Tribunal’s mediation/adjudication process set out in Rule 15A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. A copy of the Tribunal’s mediation/adjudication agreement is attached to this Interim Decision for the parties’ review. The Tribunal will offer this process at the commencement of the hearing on May 22, 2015. If the parties agree, the hearing will start with mediation/adjudication. If they do not agree, the hearing will commence with preliminary issues, followed by the applicant’s evidence.

order

13The respondent’s request for an adjournment is denied. The hearing will proceed on May 22, 2015 in Hamilton.

14The applicant must be in attendance at the hearing. Ms. Marrazzo need not be in attendance on May 22, 2015.

15Pursuant to the Tribunal’s Case Assessment Direction dated April 30, 2015, the respondent must file any documents it intends to rely on at the hearing to the applicant and the Tribunal by May 15, 2015.