Cristiano v. Goodrich Aerospace Ltd. UTC Aerospace Systems, 2016 HRTO 377

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rafael Cristiano

Applicant

-and-

Goodrich Aerospace Canada Ltd. UTC Aerospace Systems

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: March 23, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 377

Indexed as: Cristiano v. Goodrich Aerospace Ltd. UTC Aerospace Systems

1A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled to begin on May 4 and 5, 2016 in Toronto.

2On March 22, 2016 the applicant advised that he had retained representation who was unavailable for the hearing dates scheduled. The applicant sought the consent of the respondent but this Interim Decision was released prior to the respondent’s response to the request.

3The request to adjourn this hearing is denied.

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 adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a 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.

5The reason cited by the applicant’s representative is not an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment of the hearing. The dates were confirmed in a Notice of Hearing sent to the parties on December 1, 2015. Where a party changes representatives or retains a representative after the hearing dates have been fixed it is expected that they will retain a representative who is available on the scheduled date(s).

6This approach has been consistently held be the Tribunal. In Valentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 the Tribunal explained its approach:

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 14) 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 14) days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

When a party makes a decision to retain counsel after the notice of hearing has been issued, their “choice” of counsel is limited by the date previously scheduled.

7For these reasons the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing is denied.

8If any party requires relief from the time line for the filing of the hearing documents, they may request the same of the Tribunal if unable to resolve the issue themselves.

9I am not seized.