Free v. Magnetawan (Municipality), 2016 HRTO 1508

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

David Free

Applicant

-and-

Municipality of Magnetawan and Richard Smith

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

David Free

Applicant

-and-

Municipality of Magnetawan and Jeffery Rochwerg

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

David Free

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General and Brian Horrock

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: November 25, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1508 Indexed as: Free v. Magnetawan (Municipality)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

David Free, Applicant

Self-represented

Municipality of Magnetawan and Richard Smith, Respondents

M. Elizabeth Keenan, Counsel

Jeffery Rochwerg, Respondent

Charles Sinclair, Counsel

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General and Brian Horrock, Respondent

Meagan Williams, Counsel

1Summary and preliminary hearings in respect of these five (5) Applications, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, are scheduled for December 2, 2016 from 9:30 am to 12:30 am, by teleconference.

2On November 17, 2016, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal to request an adjournment of the summary\preliminary hearings for December 2, 2016. He did not initially provide any reasons for this request but upon further request for details from the Tribunal, he stated that he was asking for an adjournment because “I have a doctors/specialist appointment that recently provided to me.”

3The applicant provided a document that confirmed that he had an appointment with a physician at a community health centre on December 2, 2016 at 1:45 pm.

4The respondents oppose the request. The respondents submit that the applicant has not provided any medical documentation that indicates that due to a disability or illness he is unable to proceed with the hearings on December 2, 2016. He is only indicating that he has a mid afternoon medical appointment and he has known about the date for these hearings for many months.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

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.

7On the basis of the materials filed by the applicant, I do not find exceptional reasons to justify adjourning the hearings at this stage. It would appear that the applicant was well aware of the hearings date and could have avoided a conflict between the date of hearing and his medical appointment. In addition, these hearings are scheduled to conclude at 12:30 and may infact conclude before that time. The medical appointment is scheduled for 1:45 pm and it would appear that the medical centre is less than a half-hour drive from the applicant’s home.

8The Tribunal must balance the needs of the respondent as against its responsibility to provide a fair, just and expeditious hearing.

9The request for an adjournment is denied. The parties are directed to connect to the teleconference for the hearings on December 2, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. and to be prepared to make submissions on the issues as set out in the Case Assessment Direction dated September 9, 2016.

ORDER

10The applicant’s Request to adjourn the hearing is denied. The hearing will proceed as scheduled on December 2, 2016 at 9:30 am.