HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jeffrey Eamon
Applicant
-and-
Eckel Industries of Canada Ltd.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana
Indexed as: Eamon v. Eckel Industries of Canada Ltd.
1This matter is scheduled for a hearing in Ottawa on April 28 and 29, 2016.
2On April 18, 2016, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”), requesting, among other things, an adjournment of the scheduled hearing for 30 days. The respondent submits that it was led to believe that the applicant did not intend to pursue the Application and that there were medical documents referenced at the mediation that have not been produced. The respondent also requests the Tribunal provide two Summons to Witness.
Adjournment
3The Tribunal has made it clear on numerous occasions that adjournments are not automatically granted. The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments reads 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.
Where a party seeks to adjourn a previously scheduled mediation or hearing, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises. They must contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing.
The party making the request should contact the Registrar and provide the exceptional circumstances supporting the request and any alternative agreed upon dates. Where the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by email or fax.
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.
5I do not find that the respondent provided an exceptional reason to justify adjourning the hearing at this stage and the Request to adjourn is denied. The parties were sent a Notice of Hearing on December 3, 2015. The matter is proceeding and the applicant complied with the Tribunal’s directions for production as set out in a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) issued March 24, 2016.
6The parties are directed to attend the hearing on the dates already specified by the Tribunal and to be prepared to call evidence and make submissions.
Other Requests
7In light of the fact that the Request for order was filed seven business days before the hearing the Tribunal will address any outstanding production issues, if necessary, at the hearing. I note that the applicant will ordinarily proceed first at the hearing because he has the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that the respondent infringed his rights under the Code.
8There is no need to file a Form 10 Request for Order to obtain summonses from the Tribunal and these will be delivered to the respondent as requested.
ORDER
9The Tribunal orders:
a. The respondent’s Request to adjourn the hearing is denied and the hearing will proceed as scheduled on April 28 and 29, 2016; and
b. The Tribunal will address all outstanding production issues at the scheduled hearing.
Dated at Toronto, this 26^th^ day of April, 2016.
“Signed by”
Jennifer Khurana
Vice-chair