Decision Summary (2013-PT-01)

Case name : Lambert and Health Canada
Case # : T-2012-01
Neutral citation # : 2013-PT-01
Decision rendered : 2013-03-25

A full-text version of this decision summary is available in PDF format.

Amended Interlocutory Decision on Motion for Adjournment

Key words: Application before the Tribunal, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, complaint, interlocutory motion, adjournment, criteria to grant motion, delays, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal proceedings, natural justice, exceptional circumstances, conduct of the parties.

Background: An application was filed by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner [Commissioner]. Timelines for the discovery process were set by the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal [Tribunal]. The employer requested several extensions of time to either file its statement of particulars or postpone case management conferences. All the employer's requests were granted by the Tribunal. Twice the employer requested a postponement due to a change of counsel which was attributed to unforeseen circumstances. Parties were informed of the scheduled hearing six months in advance. Two months prior to the hearing, the third counsel for the employer filed a motion for adjournment requesting that the hearing be postponed considering she needed time to prepare the case. The employer argued that it needed this additional extension to exercise its right to full and ample opportunity to participate in the proceeding. The employer further submitted that it was in the interest of procedural fairness and the expeditious conduct of the hearing to adjourn the proceeding. Both the complainant and the Commissioner consented to this motion.

Reasons: Although the Tribunal Rules provide that the Tribunal may adjourn a hearing, they do not provide criteria for adjournments. The Tribunal stated that adjournments would be granted for serious reasons that are beyond the control of the parties. The Tribunal discussed the criteria found in recent case law in order to balance the right to an expeditious proceeding and the right of the parties to procedural fairness. The Tribunal applied criteria such as: the parties' interests; the effect on the regime that protects public servants against reprisals; the number of previous adjournments granted; the length of time for which an adjournment has been sought; the other parties' consent; whether the adjournment would needlessly delay or impede the conduct of the proceedings; the amount of time already afforded the parties for preparation of the case; the efforts made by the parties to proceed expeditiously; the parties' conduct in being present and ready for the hearing; counsel's knowledge of, and experience with, similar proceedings; and specific factors to the Tribunal such as scheduling difficulties. The Tribunal found that denying the motion would not impede the employer's right to procedural fairness. The employer will have full and ample opportunity to consider, challenge, or contradict any evidence. Furthermore, the employer is fully aware of the nature of the allegations so as to have ample opportunity to present its case to ensure that no injustice was caused to it. Finally, the Tribunal found that there were no serious causes for delay in the hearing that were beyond the control of the employer. The Tribunal addressed the public interest which includes the administration of justice.

Decision on motion: The motion was denied.

The PDF documents available on this site can be viewed or printed offline using Acrobat Reader ©. If you do not have this software, you can download it free from the Adobe Web site. The Adobe Acrobat Web site contains instructions on configuring your browser to work with the Acrobat reader, and for support and update information.