Ochea Saunders v. Monkey See Monkey Do, 2016 HRTO 1034

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ochea Saunders

Applicant

-and-

Monkey See Monkey Do

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri Price

Date: August 4, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1034

Indexed as: Saunders v. Monkey See Monkey Do

1This is an Application under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application was scheduled to be heard on July 25 and 26, 2016.

Request for adjournment

2On July 25, 2016, the parties voluntarily agreed to participate in the Tribunal’s mediation-adjudication process, pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. However, the Application was not resolved through that process.

3Following mediation-adjudication, and before the hearing commenced, the applicant requested that the hearing be adjourned in order to allow her to retain alternate legal representation or to prepare to represent herself in the hearing.. In particular, the applicant indicated that, as a result of what had occurred during settlement discussions in respect of this matter on the Friday before the Monday, July 25, 2016 hearing and during mediation-adjudication on July 25, 2016, she had lost confidence in her representative. The applicant’s legal representative clarified that, if an adjournment were not granted, and the hearing were to proceed on the two July dates, the applicant intended to represent herself.

4The respondent opposed the request for an adjournment on the basis that it had incurred significant inconvenience and expense in order to arrange for two of its witnesses and for its advisor to attend the July 25 and 26, 2016 hearing dates. The respondent submits that the applicant should have requested an adjournment of the hearing on Friday, July 22, 2016, when the problem between the applicant and her representative arose, so that the respondent could have been spared the inconvenience and expense associated with having to attend the hearing on July 25, 2016. The respondent submits that this is particularly so since the applicant was aware that the respondent had made a request for an adjournment in this matter on July 19, 2016, which was denied by the Tribunal: 2016 HRTO 954.

Decision

5On July 25, 2016, after hearing the parties’ submissions, I granted the applicant’s request for an adjournment by way of oral ruling at the hearing. This written decision confirms that oral ruling.

6As explained in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling, requests for an adjournment made at the hearing will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances. However, in determining whether extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant an adjournment, the Tribunal must also be mindful of the parties’ right to procedural fairness and natural justice.

7Based on the parties’ submissions, I determined that it was appropriate to grant the applicant’s request for an adjournment. Although it is well established that the Tribunal will generally not adjourn a hearing in order to permit a party to retain legal counsel, in this case, the applicant’s request for time to retain legal counsel was not due to a failure on her part to take timely steps to find legal representation, but rather a last-minute breakdown in the relationship between the applicant and the representative who has represented her in this matter since the Application was filed.

8In granting the applicant’s adjournment request, I emphasized that I was not finding that any of the applicant’s concerns about her legal representative were well founded, only that the breakdown in the relationship between the applicant and her representative at the last minute was an extraordinary circumstance that in my view warranted an adjournment. However, I warned the applicant that she must be diligent in retaining alternate counsel or preparing to represent herself in this matter when it comes back on for hearing. I also explained to the applicant that any future requests for further adjournments based on a desire to retain counsel and/or a loss of confidence in counsel are not likely to be granted, in accordance with the Tribunal’s caselaw: Alijohn v. Spectra Aluminum Products, 2012 HRTO 577; Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335.

9The applicant asked that the hearing be adjourned for a minimum of two months to allow her to retain alternate legal representation. Moreover, she accepted that the adjournment could result in the hearing being delayed until some time in the new year, given the respondent’s limited availability in late 2016 and early 2017.

10As I indicated at the hearing, the Registrar will reschedule this matter in consultation with the parties, no earlier than November 2016, and likely in the new year.

11I am not seized of this case.