K.O. v. Rouge Valley Health System, 2016 HRTO 28

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

K.O., K.O.O. as represented by his/her Litigation Guardian K.O.,

T.O.O. as represented by his/her Litigation Guardian K.O.,

T.O. as represented by his/her Litigation Guardian K.O.,

and T.S.O. as represented by his/her Litigation Guardian K.O.

Applicants

-and-

Rouge Valley Health System (Centenary) and Crystal Howell

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: January 7, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 28

Indexed as: K.O. v. Rouge Valley Health System

1A preliminary hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled for January 8, 2016, in Toronto. On January 5, 2016, the applicants’ representative advised the Tribunal that she had a conflict on that day, and asked for an adjournment. The respondents oppose the request.

2Specifically, the applicants’ representative advised that she had been sent a Notice to Appear, dated December 17, 2015, but which she received on December 23, 2015, to take her Oath of Citizenship.

3The adjournment is granted and the hearing will be re-scheduled.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournments will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The Practice Direction states in part as follows:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or hearing, described above. 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.

5It would appear that the applicants’ representative did not select the date for taking her Oath of Citizenship, but rather was simply advised of the date, with very little notice to her. She advised that she made several attempts to reach the respondents’ representative, but was only able to reach her voice-mail. She did not leave a message. She then contacted the Tribunal, and was told to contact the scheduling unit, where she said she did leave voice-mail messages. While I agree with respondents’ counsel’s submissions that a voice-mail and/or an email should have been left at the first available opportunity (rather than waiting to speak to counsel in person), there is no suggestion that this delay in notification has caused significant inconvenience to the respondents. Moreover, the respondents have not pointed to any significant impediment to the rescheduling of this preliminary hearing.

6On its face, the event to which the applicants’ representative has been invited is of considerable personal significance. It would appear that it cannot be easily rescheduled. Accordingly, I am prepared to find that the reason for the request qualifies as “extraordinary” in the circumstances of this case.

7For this reason the request to adjourn is granted.