Rajesh Bhardwaj v. Vol-Ham Automotive Inc. o/a Volvo of Toronto, 2009 HRTO 1107

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Rajesh Bhardwaj Applicant

-and-

Vol-Ham Automotive Inc. o/a Volvo of Toronto Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: July 22, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1107 Indexed as: Bhardwaj v. Vol Ham Automotive

ADJOURNMENT

1Respondent’s counsel wrote to the Tribunal to request an adjournment of the hearing date currently scheduled for August 11, 2009 as one of the respondent’s witnesses is out of the country from August 4 to September 4, 2009. For reasons that follow, this adjournment request is denied.

2The Confirmation of Hearing, which was issued on May 11, 2009, states that adjournment requests will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments, the relevant portion of which states:

Requests for adjournment, particularly last minute requests for adjournments are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice.

The Tribunal’s approach to scheduling and rescheduling mediations and hearings is designed to give the parties a fair opportunity to find suitable dates. Therefore, the Tribunal discourages adjournment requests, and will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative.

Where a party seeks to adjourn a previously scheduled mediation or hearing, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises. If practical, they should contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing. Alternative dates for mediation must fall within five (5) months of the date of the Notice of Application. Alternative dates for a hearing must fall within five (5) months of the date of the Confirmation of Hearing.

The party making the request should contact the Registrar and provide the reason for the request and the alternative agreed upon dates. Where the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by telephone or email. [Emphasis added]

3The respondent states that the individual who is unavailable, Leon Hinds, is one of its “key witnesses.” It is impossible to ascertain whether this is, in fact, an accurate representation of the importance of Mr. Hind’s testimony as the respondent has failed to provide its witness list in contravention of Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In the absence of this information, I am not prepared to grant the request for the adjournment at this time.

4It would appear from the material on file that there are a number of witnesses. Accordingly, it is possible that Mr. Hind’s evidence would not be reached on August 11, 2009 in any event. To grant an adjournment would deprive the parties and the Tribunal of this opportunity to, at minimum, start the hearing at the earliest possible date.

RULES 16.1, 16.3 AND 17

5The Tribunal has not received a Statement of Delivery from the respondent’s counsel that the respondent has satisfied its obligation to deliver to the applicant a list of all arguably relevant documents. Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure requires the parties to do this within 21 days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing.

6In addition, the respondent has not filed with the Tribunal a list of the documents on which it will rely, as well as a copy of those documents, as required by Rule 16.3. Moreover, as discussed above, it has not filed a witness list with the Tribunal as required by Rule 17. This material ought to have been filed 45 days prior to the hearing (i.e., June 26, 2009).

7The respondent is directed to file all such material immediately. The hearing adjudicator will determine what, if any, evidence the respondents will be permitted to call in light of the late delivery of this material.

8I am not seized of this matter.