Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Gilles Lavigne
Applicant
-and-
Health Sciences North/Horizon Santé-North (HSN)
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Lavigne v. Health Sciences North/Horizon Santé-North (HSN)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Health Sciences North/Horizon Santé North (HSN), Respondent
Kathleen Stokes, Counsel
1This matter is scheduled for hearing on April 11 and 12, 2016, in Sudbury.
2On February 26, 2016, the Tribunal received a letter from the parties advising that they wish to adjourn the hearing on consent. The reason for the adjournment is that one of the respondent’s witnesses is not available on those dates.
3The purpose of this Interim Decision is to explain why the request to adjourn is denied and to give important directions to the parties with respect to various preliminary issues.
Request to Adjourn
4In 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.
5The respondent’s request is not an exceptional reason to adjourn the hearing. It is the onus of the applicant to establish a breach of his rights under the Code and therefore he will have to proceed first. Further, in this case there remain certain issues yet to be decided by the Tribunal including the issue of the timeliness of various allegations. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to adjourn the hearing since there are numerous other witnesses who will be able to testify. If necessary the Tribunal can reconvene to hear the evidence of the respondent’s unavailable witness on another date. The Request to adjourn is denied.
Hearing Documents
6The parties were required to deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal the documents that they intend to rely on, a witness list and detailed witness statements by February 26, 2016. I find that it is appropriate to grant the parties an extension to deliver and file their hearings documents to March 18, 2016.
7In the event that the applicant does not file his hearing documents then the Application may be dismissed as abandoned. If the respondent does not file its hearing documents then this may limit its ability to rely on a document and/or call a witness.
8I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of February, 2016.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair