HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Eric Mattison
Applicant
-and-
Town of Pelham and Sarah Thomson
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott
Indexed as: Mattison v. Pelham (Town)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Eric Mattison, Applicant
Angela Browne, Representative
Introduction
1This Application is scheduled for a hearing on June 3, 2016, in St. Catharines.
2On April 28, 2016, the applicant, through his representative, requested an adjournment of the hearing and/or an extension of time to file his hearing documents. The applicant’s representative advised the Tribunal that the applicant has had serious medical issues and was admitted briefly to hospital recently, but was recovering.
decision and analysis
3The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states, in part:
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.
4Thus, the Tribunal will grant adjournments only in exceptional circumstances.
5This Application was filed on February 1, 2013. It has been scheduled for hearing many times over the past two and one-half years. The last Notice of Hearing was issued on February 4, 2016 for the hearing scheduled on June 3, 2016. The applicant has had notice of the most recent hearing date for almost three months. It appears that he took no steps to retain a representative until the past few days.
6The issue of retaining legal counsel was addressed by the Tribunal in an Interim Decision dated December 2, 2014 (2014 HRTO 1740). At that time, the applicant was told to advise the Tribunal by January 16, 2015 whether he intended to retain legal counsel. On January 15, 2015, the applicant advised the Tribunal that he would not be retaining legal counsel as he had received legal advice that he could represent himself. The fact that the applicant has changed his mind and retained a representative does not constitute an exceptional circumstance.
7Although the applicant’s representative refers to serious medical issues, there is no medical documentation to support these issues. The applicant’s representative also states the applicant is recovering. As such, there is no basis to conclude that the applicant’s health prevents him from attending the hearing in June, 2016.
8The applicant has failed to establish exceptional circumstances to grant the adjournment and the adjournment request is denied. The hearing will proceed on June 3, 2016.
9The applicant’s hearing documents were to have been delivered to the respondents and filed with the Tribunal by April 19, 2016. These documents were not filed. I would note that the applicant has received previous directions from the Tribunal to file his hearing documents. Because the applicant has recently retained a representative, a brief extension to file the applicant’s hearing documents will be granted.
10By no later than May 6, 2016, the applicant must deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal the documents he intends to rely upon at the hearing, a list of his witnesses and a brief statement describing what his witnesses will say when they testify. The applicant is reminded that he must also submit a witness statement for himself. If the applicant does not comply with these directions by May 6, 2016, his case may be dismissed as abandoned.
11The hearing will proceed on June 3, 2016. Given the history in this matter, there will be no further adjournments granted.
Dated at Toronto, this 29^th,^ day of April, 2016.
“Signed By”
Jennifer Scott
Vice-chair