HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Darrell Villa

Applicant

-and-

MARO Direct Marketing Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: July 13, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 918

Indexed as: Villa v. MARO Direct Marketing Inc.

1A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled for August 4, 2015, in Toronto.

2On July 7, 2015, the respondent requested an adjournment of this hearing on the basis that it received late notice of the hearing and would not have adequate time to prepare. The applicant objects, submitting that the late notice was the fault of the respondent for not having provided an updated mailing address. In addition, the applicant submits that it would appear that the respondent is able to adequately prepare in advance of the hearing.

3The adjournment is denied and the hearing will proceed as scheduled.

4A Notice of Hearing was issued on March 20, 2015, and sent to the parties at the respective addresses provided by them in their pleadings. It was not returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable. A prior Notice of Mediation was sent to the parties at these addresses, and the parties participated in a mediation approximately two weeks before the Notice of Hearing was mailed. The respondent did not advise the Tribunal at this time of any change in address. Rule 1.13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states: “A party must notify the Tribunal and all parties and their representatives, in writing, of any change in their contact information, as soon as possible.”

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournments will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The Practice Direction states in part as follows:

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.

[7] At this time, the respondent has provided witness statements, and has attempted to provide its documents to the Tribunal (albeit in a format the Tribunal is unable to open). It has been granted an extension to the end of today to provide its documents in a manner that the Tribunal can download and read. It would appear that it is ready to proceed to a hearing.

[8] I would note that the respondent has indicated that it has retained counsel, although counsel has not advised the Tribunal of this. There is no indication that counsel is not available on the hearing date. Indeed, the respondent has not articulated any reason why it cannot proceed on August 4, 2015, other than it does not feel that it has had an adequate time to prepare for a hearing.

6For these reasons the request to adjourn is denied. The Tribunal retains the discretion to re-visit this issue should actual difficulties arise for the parties.