Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Jennifer Adams
Applicant
-and-
SNC - Lavalin Operations & Maintenance Inc. and Bill Mindenhall
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Adams v. SNC - Lavalin Operations and Maintenance Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Jennifer Adams, Applicant
Self-represented
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to adjourn the summary hearing scheduled for October 14, 2016, at 1:30 PM.
2The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondents discriminated against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). The Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application on the basis that the Application may stand no reasonable prospect of success under the Code.
3By e-mail dated August 17, 2016, the applicant requested an adjournment of the summary hearing. She is involved in another lawsuit against the respondents and the court has advised her that her civil claim may be heard in the late summer or early fall. No date has yet been set for the civil claim. The applicant requested that the Tribunal adjourn the summary hearing in case the civil suit ends up conflicting with the time scheduled for the summary hearing.
FINDINGS
4The Tribunal does not grant adjournments automatically upon request of one of the parties. As stated in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments, the Tribunal only grants adjournments in exceptional circumstances:
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.
5In 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.
6I find that the circumstances described by the applicant do not amount to exceptional circumstances that would justify an adjournment. I understand the stress the applicant claims to be experiencing due to the two legal claims she has commenced. However, the court date for her civil suit has not yet been set. In my view, there is no valid reason to adjourn the summary hearing simply on the off chance that her court date may conflict with the summary hearing. If there is a conflict, the applicant can seek to adjust the scheduling of her court date to avoid the conflict.
ORDER
7For these reasons, the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing is denied.
8I am not seized of the Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of August, 2016.
“Signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair