HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
E.L.
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
C.M.L., by the litigation guardian E.L.
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
T.M.L., by the litigation guardian E. L.
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: E.L. v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
E.L., and C.M.L. and T.M.L. by their litigation guardian, E.L., Applicants
E.L., Self-Represented
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Respondent
Whitney Smith, Counsel
1A hearing in respect of this Application was scheduled for April 6 and 7, 2016 in Ottawa. On April 4, 2016, the respondent requested an adjournment of this hearing on the basis that the senior counsel on the file had a serious family emergency. After getting further clarification from the respondent about this person’s role, the applicant was asked for his position on the request.
2The applicant opposes this request on the basis that the senior counsel is not the counsel of record, and that she is merely an “alternate” lawyer. He sought costs from the respondent when approached directly about whether he would consent and suggested that the Tribunal “sanction” the respondent.
3The parties were advised on April 4, 2016, after the submissions were reviewed, that the adjournment was granted, with reasons to follow. These are the Tribunal’s reasons.
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. [Emphasis added.]
5Counsel for the respondent explained in her submissions that senior counsel’s role on the file “is to represent the Crown at the Tribunal hearing, draft submissions, conduct the hearing including all opening and closing submissions and witness questioning, and supervise the work conducted by the intermediate counsel and articling student.” While it is Ms. Smith whose name appears on the Tribunal’s database as counsel of record, I would note that the name of a second counsel has appeared on the more recent material submitted by the respondent to the Tribunal. Moreover, it would appear that that person is taking a lead role.
6The hearing was to be heard in Ottawa; the family emergency required counsel to remain in Toronto. This is the type of exceptional circumstances contemplated by the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on adjournments. I see no basis for sanctioning the respondent for a matter that is, by definition, beyond its control.
7For these reasons the request to adjourn was granted.
8I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of April, 2016.
“Signed by”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair