Lepage v. Mahogany Salon and Spa Carleton Place Ltd., 2016 HRTO 235

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Darlene Lepage

Applicant

-and-

Mahogany Salon and Spa Carleton Place Ltd; Catherine Wood and Krystin Wood

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: February 24, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 235

Indexed As: Lepage v. Mahogany Salon and Spa Carleton Place Ltd.

1A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled to take place on April 14 and 15, 2016 in Ottawa.

2On February 10, 2016 the respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because of the need of a personal respondent and principle of the organizational respondent to attend to medical treatments for a serious medical condition. The precise nature of the treatments is not disclosed but the respondent asserts that she will be in no condition to attend to a hearing in April 2016. The applicant opposes the request for adjournment.

3The request to adjourn this hearing is granted.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournment will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The Practice Direction states the following regarding requests for adjournments:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjourments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a hearing, described above. Requests for adjourments, particularly at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Therefore, the HRTO will only grant adjourments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the HRTO will not grant adjourments, even when all parties consent.

5The reasons cited by the respondent’s for this request are extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment of the summary hearing. Despite the limited information provided in support of the request what is described is sufficient to justify an adjournment and the applicant does not take issue with the respondents’ assertions. As such the reason for the request was an unexpected and extraordinary circumstance for which no other remedy other than an adjournment appears to be appropriate.

6For all of these reasons the request to adjourn the currently scheduled hearing is granted. The Registrar will endeavour to re-schedule the hearing as soon as possible after May 15, 2016.

7I am not seized.