Jones v. The IT Department Corp., 2017 HRTO 991

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Joseph Jones Applicant

-and-

The IT Department Corp. Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana
Date: August 3, 2017
Citation: 2017 HRTO 991
Indexed as: Jones v. The IT Department Corp.

1This matter is scheduled for a hearing in Ottawa on August 17 and 18, 2017.

2On July 24, 2017, the respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing. The respondent submits that it is a small business which is accommodating its employees’ vacations. It also submits that one of its key witnesses is on vacation until August 8, 2017, and that this individual has had serious health issues which have affected her hours of work. The respondent also requests an extension of the time to file its hearing documents and witness statements.

3The applicant does not consent to the respondent’s requests.

Adjournment

4The respondent’s request to adjourn the hearing is denied.

5The 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 reads as follows:

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.

Where a party seeks to adjourn a previously scheduled mediation or hearing, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises. They must contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing.

The party making the request should contact the Registrar and provide the exceptional circumstances supporting the request and any alternative agreed upon dates. Where the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by email or fax.

6In 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.

7I do not find that the respondent provided an exceptional reason to justify adjourning the hearing at this stage. The parties were sent a Notice of Hearing on May 10, 2017. The matter is proceeding and the applicant complied with the Tribunal’s directions for production as set out in a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) issued July 10, 2017.

8The parties are directed to attend the hearing on the dates already specified by the Tribunal and to be prepared to call evidence and make submissions.

Disclosure Obligations

9In the July 10, 2017 CAD, I directed the respondent to confirm delivery of all arguably relevant documents to the applicant by July 17, 2017. By the same date the parties were also directed to deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal their hearing documents and witness statements, including a brief description of their witnesses’ intended evidence.

10The applicant filed his witness statements and hearing documents. As of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent has not done so, and has requested an extension of the deadline to submit its hearing documents and witness statements, together with its request that the hearing be postponed.

11I have already denied the respondent’s adjournment request. The respondent’s request for a further extension to submits its hearing documents and witness statements is also denied. The initial deadline to confirm delivery of arguably relevant documents to the applicant was May 31, 2017, and the deadline for the parties to deliver and file hearing documents and witness statements was July 3, 2017. It is well past these dates as well as the deadline set out in the July 10, 2017 CAD.

12Rules 16.4 and 17.4 state as follows:

16.4 No party may rely on or present any document not included on a document list and provided to other parties in accordance with Rule 16.1 and 16.2, and filed with the Tribunal under Rule 16.3, except with the permission of the Tribunal.

17.4 No party may present a witness whose name and summary of evidence was not included in a witness list and delivered and filed in accordance with Rules 17.1 and 17.2 or present an expert witness if material has not been delivered and filed in accordance with Rule 17.3, except with the permission of the Tribunal.

DIRECTIONS TO RESPONDENT

13By no later than August 8, 2017, the respondent must confirm delivery of its arguably relevant documents to the applicant.

14By no later than August 8, 2017, the respondent must deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal: (1) the documents it intends to rely upon at the hearing, (2) a list of its witnesses and (3) a brief statement describing what its witnesses will say when they testify.

15The respondent is reminded that it must also submit a witness statement for any witness it intends to rely on at the hearing. However, if the respondent only intends to testify about the facts already contained in the Response, it is sufficient to confirm this in writing by August 8, 2017.

16If the respondent does not provide these materials by August 8, 2017, the Tribunal may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, including not permitting the respondent to call any witnesses or present any documentary evidence at the hearing.

17The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure are available at www.sjto.gov.on.ca/hrto/ under “Law, Rules, Decisions”.

ORDER

18The Tribunal orders:

a. The respondent’s request to adjourn the hearing is denied and the hearing will proceed as scheduled on August 17 and 18, 2017; and

b. The respondent’s request for a further extension of the disclosure deadlines is denied. The respondent is directed to comply with its obligations under Rules 16 and 17, as set out in paragraphs 13 to 16 above.