Weekes v. Home Starts Inc., 2017 HRTO 1253

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sharon Weekes Applicant

-and-

Home Starts Inc., The Regional Municipality of Halton (Housing Services Division), Paul Hastie, Vita Isherwood and Andrew Balahura Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: September 22, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1253 Indexed as: Weekes v. Home Starts Inc.

1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to housing because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin disability, family status, marital status, age and reprisal.

2In a Case Assessment Direction issued on September 28, 2016 the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be held in this case. The preliminary hearing is currently scheduled to take place on October 2, 2017.

3Due to administrative error the preliminary hearing was not scheduled for many months. In a Notice of Prelimianry Hearing issued on May 30,2017 the preliminary hearing was initially scheduled to take place on August 8, 2017. It appears that the initial date was re-scheduled because of a request by the applicant. A Notice of Re-scheduled Preliminary Hearing date issued on July 18, 2017 set the current date for this case.

4On or about September 19, 2017 the Tribunal received a medical note in which a family physician requests, presumably on behalf of the applicant, that the October 2, 2017 date be adjourned. The note indicates that the applicant has had a history of a cough for 2 to 3 weeks.

5In an email exchange between the applicant and a representative of one of the respondents the suggestion is made that another reason why the applicant may be seeking the adjournment of this case is that she wishes to retain counsel. Other material provided by the applicant indicates that she has approached counsel but that person is not available and is not yet in a position take on the case.

6The applicant does not appear to have made a formal Request for an adjournment of the preliminary hearing. However based on the very limited material provided such a Request would be denied.

7As regards the applicant’s desire to retain counsel, I observe that this preliminary hearing was directed almost a year ago. After some delay caused by the Tribunal it has been clear since the initial Notice of Preliminary Hearing on May 30, 2017 that this hearing was coming. The applicant has had ample opportunity to retain a representative for this case. The Tribunal also expects that once a hearing has been scheduled that a party retaining representation must ensure that their selected representative is available for the hearing. To the extent that the applicant might have requested an adjournment for this reason it would be denied.

8As regards the medical information provided, it is insufficient to justify an adjournment in the circumstances because the note does not explain why the applicant would be unable to participate in a short telephone hearing in two weeks. For this reason as well, an adjournment request would be denied.