HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jemal Tulul
Applicant
-and-
King Travel Can Ltd.
Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
Gamela Hagos
Applicant
-and-
King Travel Can Ltd.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: Tulul v. King Travel Can
1A hearing in this matter is scheduled for February 11, 2010. The Confirmation of Hearing was issued on October 8, 2009.
2The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction on January 21, 2010 which included a direction to the parties that they needed to provide submissions to demonstrate that their representatives were entitled to appear before the Tribunal under Rule 1.14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
3On January 22, 2010, the respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because its president was travelling outside of the country, but it did not address the issue of whether its representative could participate in the proceedings.
4The Tribunal issued another Case Assessment Direction on January 28, 2010 to state that the hearing would not be adjourned, and the respondent’s representative would not be permitted to represent the respondent at the hearing unless he came to the hearing with proof that he was eligible to appear as a representative before the Tribunal.
5At the end of the day, on February 5, 2010, new counsel for the respondent wrote to advise the Tribunal that he had been retained the previous day, and he requested that the hearing be adjourned to permit him to prepare. He also wrote, “As it is, I am booked for the entire week.”
6The applicants’ counsel, also recently retained, replied on February 6, 2010, and opposed the request to adjourn, citing his own sacrifices to expeditiously prepare for the hearing and the resulting costs to his clients.
7The 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.
The Tribunal will not automatically grant adjournments even when all parties consent. Consent of all parties will be a factor which the Tribunal will consider where a request to adjourn a mediation or hearing is made, but it is not the only, or even the main factor.
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.
The Tribunal typically will not adjourn a hearing date because the parties wish to “engage in settlement discussions” or are “close to a deal.” The Tribunal encourages mediation and settlements, and will assist the parties in this regard. Where parties believe they may be able to resolve a matter shortly before the scheduled hearing, they should advise the Registrar and the Tribunal will make a mediator and mediation room available. However, the Tribunal discourages the cancellation or adjournment of hearing dates so that the parties can explore settlement.
8As stated in Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 534, the decision of a party to retain counsel after a hearing is scheduled is not the type of circumstance that would justify a request for an adjournment. Absent exceptional circumstances, a party must find counsel who is available on the date already scheduled. Moreover, in this case, the applicants will be prejudiced as they have made arrangements for their attendance and that of their witness at the hearing. Accordingly, the request for an adjournment is denied.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of February, 2010.
“Signed by”
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair