Gale v. Thunder Bay Police Service, 2016 HRTO 1031

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Daniel Gale

Applicant

-and-

Thunder Bay Police Service and Andrew Johnstone

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: August 3, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1031

Indexed as: Gale v. Thunder Bay Police Service

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Daniel Gale, Applicant

Self-represented

Thunder Bay Police Service and Andrew Johnstone, Respondents

Robert Edwards, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondents discriminated against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). The matter is scheduled for hearing on September 16, 2016. This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s request for an adjournment.

BACKGROUND

2The Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Hearing on May 4, 2016 which advised the parties of the date of the hearing as well as the deadlines for the pre-hearing disclosure required under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

3On June 2, 2016, the organizational respondent delivered to the applicant copies of the arguably relevant documents in its possession in accordance with Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

4On June 10, 2016, the applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing until July 2017 on the basis that he did not have a sufficient amount of time to gather the necessary information for his case. He noted that he does not have a lawyer and is representing himself.

FINDINGS

5The Tribunal has made it clear on numerous occasions that adjournments are not automatically granted. The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states:

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.

6In 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 [now fourteen] 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 [now fourteen] days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

7The Tribunal has held that a party’s lack of preparation for a hearing is not an “extraordinary circumstance” justifying an adjournment: Wilson v. York (Regional Municipality), 2009 HRTO 2020; Schenk v. OSAD, 2010 HRTO 446; and Mackin v. Houselink Community Homes, 2013 HRTO 541.

8The only reason cited in support of the applicant’s request relates to matters that were entirely within his control: gathering the necessary documents to prepare for the hearing. The applicant had sufficient notice of the hearing date. He also has had ample notice of the position that the respondents would take at the hearing, as he received the respondents’ Response in February 2016. The fact that the applicant does not have a lawyer is also not an exceptional circumstance that would justify an adjournment. Most applicants before the Tribunal are self-represented and therefore that is not a valid reason to grant an adjournment in this case.

9Accordingly, the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing is denied.

DISCLOSURE

10Parties to a Tribunal proceeding have certain pre-hearing disclosure obligations. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure set out a two-stage disclosure process which is summarized in the Notice of Hearing sent to the parties. In the Notice of Hearing, the Tribunal advised the parties that, by May 25, 2016, they were required to provide to each other copies of all documents in their possession that are arguably relevant to the matters raised in the Application.

11As part of the second stage of the disclosure process, the parties were then required to provide the following things to one another and to the Tribunal by August 2, 2016:

a. a list of the witnesses they intend to call at the hearing of the Application;

b. detailed witness statements describing what the witnesses will say when they testify; and

c. copies of the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing.

12The applicant did not disclose any arguably relevant documents to the respondents by the May 25, 2016 deadline. Neither party made the disclosure of hearing documents and witness statements required by August 2, 2016 due to the applicant’s request for an adjournment.

13In these circumstances, the Tribunal makes the directions for disclosure set out below.

ORDER/DIRECTIONS

1The Tribunal makes the following orders and directions:

a. The applicant’s request for an adjournment is denied.

b. No later than August 10, 2016, the applicant must provide the respondents with copies of any documents in his possession that are arguably relevant to the issues raised in his Application. If he believes that he has no documents that are arguably relevant to the issues raised in the Application, he must confirm this with the respondent’s counsel in writing.

c. No later than August 16, 2016, the parties must deliver to each other and to the Tribunal the following:

1. a list of the witnesses they intend to call at the hearing of the Application;

2. detailed witness statements describing what the witnesses will say when they testify. The applicant and personal respondent should note that they must provide a witness statement for themselves if they intend to testify at the hearing. The witness statements must set out a summary of the testimony that they intend to give at the hearing. ; and

3. copies of the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing.

d. In recent correspondence, the respondents’ counsel has indicated that the applicant has failed to disclose certain relevant documentation from a family law dispute in which he was involved. In particular, the respondents have requested from the applicant a copy of the court decision in that dispute. If the applicant does not disclose this documentation to the respondents by August 10, 2016, the respondents must file a production request with the Tribunal no later than August 16, 2016.

14The Vice-chair who is assigned to hear this Application is currently on vacation. He will address any further requests or issues raised by the parties after his return from vacation on August 16, 2016.