Christine Thomlinson

The applicant requested an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates due to medical reasons, providing a doctor's note indicating an inability to participate.

The respondents opposed the adjournment, citing a history of last-minute requests and prejudice, and requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal cancelled the first hearing date but ordered the second date to proceed to hear evidence and argument specifically on the adjournment request and whether the application should be dismissed for abuse of process.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates due to medical reasons, other legal proceedings, and housing issues.

The respondents consented to an extension for filing materials but objected to the adjournment, citing a history of multiple adjournments during mediation.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it, but granted an extension for filing disclosure materials.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates, citing a recent change in legal counsel and ongoing settlement discussions.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the adjournment, finding that retaining counsel late and seeking more time for settlement discussions do not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The hearing dates were maintained, but the parties were granted a brief extension to complete their disclosure obligations.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging her employment was terminated because she refused unsafe work.

The applicant had refused to print invoices, claiming that the stress caused by interpersonal conflicts with coworkers over the use of a shared printer endangered her health.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that stress from interpersonal conflict does not constitute a 'physical hazard' as required by section 43 of the Act.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the applicant did not genuinely believe her health and safety were in danger, but rather used the work refusal to force the employer to resolve the printer situation.