Andrine Scott v. Marylon Hall, 2017 HRTO 1085

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrine Scott

Applicant

-and-

Marylon Hall

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eban Bayefsky

Date: August 18, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1085

Indexed as: Scott v. Marylon Hall

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing scheduled for August 23, 2017.

2On August 17, 2017, the applicant requested an adjournment on the basis that she had “sought out legal counsel and they need the time to prepare for the hearing.” The applicant also stated that she is “still trying to find transportation in order to attend the hearing….” The applicant had previously indicated on August 8, 2017 that she was “trying to find the funds to attend the hearing….”

3On August 18, 2017, the respondent indicated that it opposed the applicant’s request on the basis that if the applicant had retained new counsel, it would be the “fourth counsel…on the file.” The respondent also stated that it would be prejudiced by the adjournment.

4Under the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediation, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments, adjournments will only be granted in “extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative.”

5The Tribunal has held that a party’s decision to retain counsel after the hearing has been scheduled is not an “extraordinary circumstance” justifying an adjournment simply because counsel is unavailable or unprepared: Wilson v. York (Regional Municipality), 2009 HRTO 2020, and Schenk v. OSAD, 2010 HRTO 446.

6It is not clear from the applicant’s request that she has, in fact, retained counsel. The applicant simply states that she has “sought out” new counsel and “they” need time to prepare. The applicant does not provide the name or contact information of the new counsel. The applicant has also suggested that she may not be able to attend the hearing for other reasons, namely, finding “funds” or “transportation” to attend the hearing.

7Even if the applicant has retained new counsel, and even if this is, in fact, the reason for her request, given the noted Practice Direction and case law, this is not a sufficient basis for granting an adjournment.

8The applicant’s request for an adjournment is denied.