Tulul v. King Travel Can, 2010 HRTO 318

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

Date: February 12, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 318

Indexed as: Tulul v. King Travel Can

1A hearing in this matter was scheduled for February 11, 2010. The Confirmation of Hearing was issued on October 8, 2009.

2On January 22, 2010, the respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because its president was travelling outside of the country. The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction on January 28, 2010 to state that the hearing would not be adjourned.

3On February 5, 2010, new counsel for the respondent wrote to the Tribunal, requesting an adjournment in order that he prepare. He also wrote, “As it is, I am booked for the entire week.” The 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.

4The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 301, on February 9, 2010, denying the request for an adjournment with reference to the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments.

5On the day of the Hearing, the respondent’s president was present in the hearing room, but, through a witness accompanying him, he communicated that he needed an interpreter to participate in the hearing because he cannot speak English well enough to understand the hearing. He intended to both represent the respondent and to give testimony as a witness. It was explained that the Tribunal does not have the ability to provide interpreters unless it receives a request in advance of the hearing or mediation. As per the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Requests for Language Interpretation, a request must be made “as soon as possible.”

6The respondent then requested an adjournment in order that services from an interpreter could be arranged. The applicants opposed the request, taking the position that the respondent could speak and understand English, and that the applicants would be prejudiced by an adjournment; however, it appeared that the respondent’s president’s request and the basis for it were genuine. In order not to breach rules of natural justice, the adjournment was granted.

7The Tribunal’s Registrar shall issue a Confirmation of Hearing with a new date which will be peremptory on the respondent. As well, the respondent is reminded that the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, Guidelines and Practice Directions are on its website. It should be familiar with them by the time of the hearing.

8I am not seized.