Khan v. CCSI COMPUCOM Systems, 2009 HRTO 1697

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Muzaffar Khan

Applicant

-and-

CCSI COMPUCOM Systems (formerly Getronics Canada)

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: October 16, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1697

Indexed as: Khan v. CCSI COMPUCOM Systems

1This is an Application pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). By Interim Decision dated July 10, 2009, 2009 HRTO 1021, the Tribunal directed that a hearing be held on a preliminary issue. The Interim Decision directed the respondent to file a Response in Form 2, but stated that it need only complete sections 1-5 and 21 at this time.

2On July 27, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Confirmation of Hearing scheduling the hearing for November 12, 2009. The notice indicated that requests for adjournments would be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments.

3On August 10, 2009, the respondent filed a Response, completing only sections 1-5 and 21. On August 12, 2009, the Tribunal provided the respondent with a letter directing that it file a complete Response. This was an administrative error, in light of the direction in the Interim Decision, and the respondent need not file a complete Response at this time.

4On October 14, 2009, Associate General Counsel for the respondent wrote to the Tribunal requesting a rescheduling of the hearing. He states that he has just commenced his position, that his predecessor left the company suddenly, the file is not complete, and that he needs to retain outside counsel as this matter is outside his area of expertise.

5The Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments provides that requests to reschedule must be made within five days of receiving the Notice of Hearing. The Information Bulletin states the following regarding requests for adjournment:

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.

6In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 4, the Tribunal stated:

The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of proceedings before it. It expects to receive thousands of applications each year. The Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all parties before the Tribunal. Therefore, when an adjournment request is made, it is not only the interests of the parties to the particular proceeding must consider, but the fact that Tribunal time reserved for the resolution of those parties’ dispute will no longer be used. For that reason, among others, the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments indicates that even adjournment requests made on consent of the parties more than five days after the hearing is scheduled may be denied. The Tribunal has balanced the interests of parties in having hearings scheduled according to their and counsel’s availability with these broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

7Change of counsel or a decision to retain counsel has not generally been recognized as a extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment: Vallentyne, supra. The hearing on November 12 is nearly a month away, and will involve legal submissions on a discrete issue. The respondent has not set out reasons why it cannot retain counsel who can represent it at the hearing. The request to adjourn is dismissed.

8I am not seized.