HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Prince Ankrah
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren
Indexed as: Ankrah v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
1A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled for November 10, 2017 in Toronto.
2A Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) was delivered to the parties on October 16, 2017 to alert the parties that they have failed to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure regarding pre-hearing disclosure of documents and witness statements.
ADJOURNMENT REQUEST
3On October 16, 2017, the respondent advised the applicant and the Tribunal that, it had not received the Notice of Hearing either by email or regular mail and was investigating the cause of this communication loss. As a result, prior to receiving the CAD it had not been aware of the hearing date or its disclosure obligations and it was therefore requesting an adjournment of the November 10, 2017 hearing date.
4The applicant is opposing the adjournment request, although he has not complied with his own disclosure obligations by serving and file witness statements and the documents he intends to rely on at the hearing.
5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on requests to adjourn or reschedule hearings makes clear that the Tribunal will only grant adjournments in exceptional circumstances. It states:
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.
6Section 40 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, requires the Tribunal to adopt practices that allow for the most fair, just and expeditious resolution of an Application. Rule 1.7(w) allows the Tribunal to take the steps it deems necessary to ensure an Application is resolved in this manner. As the respondent did not have prior notice of the hearing dates and disclosure obligations, it would not be fair to the respondent if the hearing were to proceed on November 10, 2017. I find that this situation presents an exceptional circumstance.
7For these reasons, I grant the applicant’s adjournment request.
ORDER
8The November 10, 2017 hearing is adjourned. The parties will receive a Notice of Rescheduled Hearing from the Tribunal’s Registrar.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 25th day of October, 2017.
“Signed by”
Laurie Letheren
Vice-chair