Manuel Espinoza v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2017 HRTO 1230

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Manuel Espinoza

Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: September 19, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1230

Indexed as: Espinoza v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing scheduled for tomorrow.

2On June 6, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for September 20, 2017. The Notice also informed them that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments. The Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice, and requests for adjournments thereafter will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness, or representative.

3On September 15, 2017, the respondent disclosed to the applicant and filed with the Tribunal a Supplemental Book of Documents.

4Between September 15, 2017 and today, the applicant filed correspondence with the Tribunal, which requested that the hearing be adjourned and rescheduled because counsel does not have sufficient time to review the Supplemental Book of Documents with the applicant and decide how to respond to it, and the applicant has been rendered “medically unfit” to attend tomorrow because of the respondent’s late disclosure of documents.

5The respondent has also filed correspondence with the Tribunal, which opposed the applicant’s adjournment request. The respondent stated that the Supplemental Book of Documents was disclosed in response to statements in the applicant’s witness statement, and that the reason for his adjournment request is emblematic of what this case is about as the applicant frequently claims “sickness” when he doesn’t get his way in the workplace.

6The applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing was made more than 14 days after the Notice of Hearing was issued to the parties. The Tribunal’s approach to late adjournment requests was set out in Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4:

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 days [now 14 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 those broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days [now 14 days] that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

7The applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing is granted with conditions. I am willing to accept, on a provisional basis, that he is medically unfit to attend the hearing scheduled for September 20, 2017, and that this constitutes an extraordinary circumstance that justifies adjourning the hearing. However, in view of the fact that the applicant has not submitted a doctor’s note in support of his request, he is directed to do the following.

8Within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant shall file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondent a doctor’s note, which answers the following questions:

1. Did Mr. Espinoza have a medical condition, which rendered him medically unfit to attend the hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario on September 20, 2017?

2. If so, what medical condition rendered him medically unfit to attend the hearing?

3. How did the medical condition render him medically unfit to attend the hearing?

4. Will he be able to attend a hearing in the foreseeable future?

5. If so, when will he be able to attend a hearing?

9The Tribunal will provide further directions to the parties after receiving the doctor’s note. If the applicant does not comply with the direction set out in this Interim Decision, the Tribunal may dismiss the Application.