Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Ying (Sissy) Gu
Applicant
-and-
Habitat for Humanity Canada Habitat Pour L’humanite Canada and Habitat for Humanity Greater Toronto Area
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Kevin Cleghorn
Indexed as: Gu v. Habitat for Humanity Canada Habitat Pour L’humanite Canada and Habitat for Humanity Greater Toronto Area
1The summary hearing in this matter is scheduled to proceed on Tuesday, June 16, 2015. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request for an adjournment, which is opposed by the respondents.
2By e-mail dated June 10, 2015, the applicant sought an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that she wanted legal advice and/or to retain a lawyer, that the respondents, or at least one of them consented to the adjournment, and that she needed further documentary disclosure prior to the summary hearing.
3On June 10, 2015, the Tribunal e-mailed the respondents to request their position on the adjournment request. In response, on June 11, 2015, the respondent opposed the adjournment request on the basis that the request for adjournment is neither timely nor reasonable.
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 mediation or 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.
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.
5This matter was scheduled for summary hearing by letter from the Tribunal dated March 18, 2015 (although the summary hearing was originally scheduled for June 9, 2015 the parties were subsequently advised by letter dated April 17, 2015 that it would, in fact, occur on June 16, 2015). In each letter, the parties were advised that re-scheduling of the summary hearing had to be requested within fourteen days from the date of that notice. The letters also stated that retaining a new representative who was unable to appear on the date scheduled for the summary hearing was not considered an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment. None of the parties are required to present evidence or produce documents at the summary hearing in any event.
6In my view, the applicant has had more than ample notice of the hearing in this matter, and more than ample time to prepare. The request for adjournment by the applicant does not raise any of the exceptional circumstances contemplated by the Practice Direction set out above. Accordingly, the adjournment request is denied and the hearing will proceed as scheduled on June 16, 2015 commencing at 1:30 P.M.
7All parties should review and consider the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure (Rule 19A) and the Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests available on the HRTO’s website (www.sjto.gov.on.ca/hrto/) prior to the summary hearing.
Dated at Toronto, this 12th day of June 2015.
“Signed By”
Kevin Cleghorn
Member