Fragkopoulos v. Meditskos, 2016 HRTO 893

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Maria Fragkopoulos Applicant

-and-

George Meditskos Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana
Date: July 6, 2016
Citation: 2016 HRTO 893
Indexed as: Fragkopoulos v. Meditskos

1This is a Contravention of Settlement Application (“Application”) filed under s.45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that the respondent failed to pay general damages agreed to in Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties on September 8, 2015 in settlement of a previous Application.

2This Interim Decision determines the respondent’s request to adjourn the hearing scheduled for July 14, 2016.

Adjournment

3This matter was originally scheduled for a hearing on May 11, 2016. The respondent filed a timely request to reschedule the matter and the parties were sent a new Notice of Hearing on May 3, 2016 confirming that the hearing would be rescheduled to July 14, 2016.

4On June 29, 2016, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”), seeking an adjournment sine die of the hearing.

5The respondent asks that the Tribunal adjourn the Application pending the conclusion of a civil claim he has brought against the applicant, her spouse and a third person. That claim has been ongoing since 2014 and the respondent submits its outcome is relevant to the Application.

6The applicant opposes the Request and any further delay which would prejudice the applicant who filed this Application on December 19, 2015. The applicant submits that the court proceeding is unrelated to the issue of the respondent’s alleged contravention of the settlement.

7The 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.

8In 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.

9On the basis of the materials filed by the respondent, I do not find exceptional reasons to justify adjourning the hearing at this stage. The respondent did not provide a copy of the civil claim he refers to in his Request and merely indicates that it is a civil “assault” and damages claim related to the incidents which gave rise to the initial human rights Application. On the basis of the information provided by the respondent, I find there to be minimal overlap with this Application.

10The Tribunal must balance the needs of the respondent as against its responsibility to provide a fair, just and expeditious hearing. This Application has already been adjourned once at the respondent’s request. It was rescheduled after the parties confirmed their availability on July 14, 2016 and the respondent has not explained why two weeks before the scheduled hearing date in this Application he is requesting an indefinite adjournment pending the conclusion of a civil claim that has been ongoing for 2 years.

11The parties are directed to attend the hearing on the date already specified by the Tribunal and to be prepared to call evidence and make submissions.

ORDER

12The respondent’s Request to adjourn the hearing is denied. The hearing will proceed as scheduled on July 14, 2016.