Shannon Marry v. Medilean Wellness Weight Loss Clinic, 2016 HRTO 926

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shannon Marry

Applicant

-and-

Medilean Wellness Weight Loss Clinic

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: July 14, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 926 Indexed As: Marry v. Medilean Wellness Weight Loss Clinic

1A hearing in respect of this Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, is scheduled for July 29, 2016, in London.

2On July 8, 2016, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal to request an extension of two months to prepare his case. He indicates that he has been battling health issues lately and needs to leave the country for one month at the end of July.

3The applicant opposes the request. The applicant submits that the respondent has not provided any valid reason for the Tribunal to grant the adjournment and any further delay would prejudice the applicant who filed this Application on August 5, 2015.

4The 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 states:

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.

5In 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.

6On 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 any medical documentation or otherwise indicate that his health condition prevented him from attending the hearing. The parties were provided with a Notice of Hearing on March 23, 2016 which indicated the date of the hearing so the respondent was well aware of the hearing date and could have avoided a conflict between the date of hearing and his travel plans.

7The Tribunal must balance the needs of the respondent as against its responsibility to provide a fair, just and expeditious hearing.

8The parties are directed to attend the hearing on July 29, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. and to be prepared to call evidence and make submissions.

9The respondent is reminded of the Order made by the Tribunal in Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 903 in which he was given an extension to July 15, 2016 to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to the exchange and filing of documents and witness statements as well as the documents specified at paragraph 8(b) of that Interim Decision.

ORDER

10The respondent’s Request to adjourn the hearing is denied. The hearing will proceed as scheduled on July 29, 2016.