minicounsel

Jimmy Novo v. Olymel Brampton Inc., 2009 HRTO 106 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

January 30, 2009

Jimmy Novo v. Olymel Brampton Inc., 2009 HRTO 106

Case Summary

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference due to his representative's scheduling conflicts with other matters. The respondents opposed the adjournment. Before the Tribunal ruled on the request, the conflicting matters were either adjourned or alternate representation was arranged. As the scheduling conflicts no longer existed, the Tribunal denied the adjournment request and ordered the Case Resolution Conference to proceed as scheduled.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jimmy Novo

Applicant

-and-

Olymel Brampton Inc., Elizabeth O’Keefe, Mark Cerbu

and Dan Sandor

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: January 30, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 106

Indexed as: Novo v. Olymel Brampton

[1] This is an Application made under s. 53(3) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, dated August 12, 2008. The matter was not resolved at mediation on October 30, 2008 and, by letter dated November 19, 2008, the Tribunal advised the parties that the Case Resolution Conference would proceed on February 3 and 4, 2009.

[2] By letter dated January 20, 2009 the applicant’s representative wrote to the Tribunal to request an adjournment of the Case Resolution Conference in this matter on the basis of a conflict with a mediation in another matter on which the applicant’s representative was appearing for another client. In fact, this mediation was only scheduled for a half day on February 4, 2009. However, it was discovered that the applicant’s representative had a further conflict on February 3, 2009, as a result of a Case Resolution Conference in yet another matter on which he was appearing. By letter dated January 23, 2009, the respondents strenuously oppose the requested adjournment.

[3] On January 28, 2009, the Tribunal sent out further correspondence advising the parties of the conflict on February 3, 2009 and also indicating the Tribunal’s understanding that the applicant’s representative was prepared to arrange for alternate representation to cover the mediation on February 4, 2009. The parties were invited to make any further submissions regarding the requested adjournment of this matter by 5 p.m. on January 29, 2009. The respondents filed further submissions continuing their opposition to any adjournment. No material regarding the adjournment was received from the applicant.

[4] On January 29, 2009, the Tribunal received a request for an adjournment from the respondents in the matter which was creating a conflict for the applicant’s representative on February 3, 2009. This adjournment has been granted. As a result, the applicant’s representative no longer has any conflict on February 3, 2009. Further, the applicant’s representative has not disputed the Tribunal’s understanding that he can arrange for alternate representation for the mediation on February 4, 2009, so that there appears to be no conflict on that date either.

[5] As there is now no conflict for the applicant’s representative on either February 3 or 4, 2009, the case resolution conference in this matter will proceed as scheduled on those dates.

Dated at Toronto, this 30^th day of January, 2009.

“Signed By”

Mark Hart

Vice-chair