HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
D.S.
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: D.S. v. Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
D.S., Applicant
Self-represented
Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin, Respondent
Dawn Dubois, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to adjourn the preliminary hearing scheduled for May 4, 2016.
2By Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be held to determine whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application on the basis that the substance of the Application has already been dealt with in another proceeding. In addition, the preliminary hearing will consider whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it stands no reasonable prospect of success.
3On April 28, 2016, the applicant requested that the Tribunal adjourn and reschedule the preliminary hearing due to a recent fire and other “personal issues”. He also indicated that he has made a motion, presumably in court, to obtain certain documents from the respondent. According to the applicant, the motion is set to be heard May 17, 2016.
4The respondent did not oppose the applicant’s adjournment request.
Finding re. adjournment request
5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on requests to adjourn or reschedule hearings makes clear that the Tribunal will only grant adjourments in exceptional circumstances. It states:
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.
6The applicant’s adjournment request is somewhat lacking in specificity. The Tribunal normally requires more detailed information when parties make a request to adjourn a hearing. Unspecified “personal issues” would not be a sufficient reason to grant a request for an adjournment. However, I find that the recent fire described in the applicant’s e-mail may amount to the kind of exceptional circumstance that warrants an adjournment. It is also possible that the documents he is seeking in his motion to the court may be relevant to the preliminary hearing.
7For these reasons, I grant the applicant’s adjournment request.
anonymization
8I have anonymized this Application (used initials) in order to ensure compliance with s. 45(8) of the *Child and Family Services Act*, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, which states:
No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.
ORDER
9The Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The preliminary hearing scheduled for May 4, 2016, is adjourned. The parties will receive a Notice of Rescheduled Hearing from the Tribunal’s Registrar. The Notice will provide a date for the rescheduled hearing. If either party is not available on the date set out in the Notice, they must follow the rescheduling instructions contained in the Notice within the timeframes set out in the Notice.
b. The applicant’s name shall be substituted with his initials in the style of cause of this proceeding.
Dated at Toronto, this 29^th^ day of April, 2016.
“Signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair