```markdown
# Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1991] OLRB Rep. April 576
3248-90-OH Wade Dennis Procter, Complainant v. Whitler Industries Ltd., Respondent
**BEFORE:** R. O. MacDowell, Alternate Chair, and Board Members W. H. Wightman and R. R. Montague.
**DECISION OF THE BOARD;** April 5, 1991
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
[1] This is a complaint under section 24 of the *Occupational Health and Safety Act* in which the complainant contends that his employment has been illegally terminated. The complaint was filed on March 18, 1991. In accordance with its usual practice, the Board appointed an Officer to meet with the parties to endeavour to effect a settlement pursuant to section 24(3) of the Act, and, in addition, gave notice that, failing settlement, a hearing would take place in Toronto on Tuesday, April 23, 1991.
[2] By letter dated March 28, 1991, counsel for the complainant wrote to the Board requesting an adjournment of the scheduled hearing. Counsel indicates that she will not be available to proceed on April 23, and is concerned that since her organization is the only legal aid clinic in Ontario specializing in occupational health and safety matters, she is reluctant to refer the complainant elsewhere. She writes, in part:
> "Unfortunately, were I to refer my client elsewhere it would be to the legal aid certificate program. He would find that there is not an abundance of lawyers specializing in health and safety matters on the employee side who in addition take legal aid certificates".
Counsel requests that the matter be adjourned to another date. No time frame or schedule of her availability is provided, nor does she indicate why she is not available on April 23. We note finally:
(a) at the time counsel accepted this "retainer" the hearing date had already been fixed; and
(b) the respondent opposes the request for an adjournment and is apparently anxious to get on with this case.
[3] Section 24 of the *Occupational Health and Safety Act* is designed to provide employees with an expeditious and inexpensive remedy where they have been disciplined or discharged for acting in compliance with the Act or seeking its enforcement. Expedition is important for both parties; the employee because s/he may well be out of work pending a resolution of his/her rights under the OHSA; and the employer, because its potential liability mounts with each passing week. Unlike the situation at common law, an employee who has been wrongly discharged is entitled to get his/her job back and receive compensation for all wages and benefits lost. S/he is not restricted to compensation only, and limited to the amount of notice of termination to which s/he would have been entitled. Furthermore, quite apart from the uncertainties, cost, or outcome for particular parties in particular cases, it is our view that the statutory objectives are best accomplished by a prompt and final resolution of workplace disputes. Against that background, once a hearing date has been fixed, the Board has been reluctant to adjourn the matter (in the absence of consent) to accommodate a party's convenience or counsel's calendar. Nor prior to the commencement of a hearing has the Board been inclined to give much weight to the submission that (for various reasons) a particular solicitor is the only one uniquely qualified or available to handle a client's case.
[4] Having considered the complainant's request for an adjournment, and the stated reasons therefor, the Board is not persuaded that the request should be granted. Such request may, of course, be renewed at the commencement of the hearing on April 23, 1991, at which time the employer will have an opportunity to respond, and the hearing panel may make such order, on terms or otherwise, as it considers appropriate in the circumstances then before it.
minicounsel