HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Riza Borja Applicant
-and-
Sam Bazos Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard Date: August 3, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1030 Indexed as: Borja v. Bazos
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Riza Lina Borja, Applicant Self-represented
Dr. Sam Bazos, Respondent James R. Olchowy, Counsel
1A hearing in respect of this Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, is scheduled for August 15 and 16, 2016 in Toronto.
2On July 15, 2016, the applicant requested an adjournment to September 2 and 9, 2016 to accommodate her school schedule. The applicant made no further submissions in support of the request for an adjournment.
3On July 20, 2016, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal opposing the request for an adjournment and indicating that adjourning the matter would cause him significant prejudice.
4On July 22, 2016, the Tribunal denied the adjournment request because the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional reasons for the requested adjournment.
5On July 22, 2016, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal requesting the adjournment again and indicating that she has a final exam and a doctor’s appointment on the hearing date. The applicant provided no further particulars and failed to indicate the date of the alleged final exam and medical appointment.
6The Tribunal requested that the applicant file, by July 29, 2016, written proof of enrolment in a course, the date of the final exam, when the exam schedule was posted or sent to students and proof of a doctor’s appointment on one of the hearing days and why the appointment cannot be rescheduled. The applicant indicated that she would comply with the request.
7On July 29, 2016, the applicant filed with the Tribunal two documents. The first document indicates the applicant’s class schedule at a college of arts, business and technology, and the beginning and end date of each course. The document indicates that the applicant is registered for a course from July 18 to August 19, 2016. The document fails to indicate whether there is a final exam in the course and the date of such exam, if any. The second document is a sleep study requisition. The document does not include confirmed appointment dates.
adjournment request
8The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on requests to adjourn or reschedule reads as follows:
The Tribunal discourages requests for adjournments 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 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.
9In 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 proceeding must consider, but the fact that Tribunal time reserved for the resolution of those parties’ dispute 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 days after the hearing is scheduled may be denied. The Tribunal has balanced the interests of parties in having hearings scheduled according to their and counsel’s availability with these broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.
10The applicant’s documents, filed in response to the Tribunal’s request for particulars, fail to provide proof of a final exam, the date of such an exam, if any, and when the exam schedule was shared with students. In addition, the applicant failed to provide proof of a medical appointment that cannot be rescheduled. The respondent has indicated that adjourning this matter would cause him significant prejudice. There are no exceptional circumstances that warrant the adjournment. The Tribunal denies the adjournment request and the hearing will proceed as scheduled.
ORDER
11The applicant’s request for an adjournment is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of August, 2016.
“Signed by”
Josée Bouchard Vice-chair