Quraishi v. Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 564

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jibran Quraishi

Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: March 15, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 564

Indexed as: Quraishi v. Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board

Reasons for Decision

1A hearing in this matter is scheduled for March 17, 2010. This hearing was scheduled by Notice from the Tribunal dated November 17, 2009 after consultation with all parties. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request for an adjournment.

2By letter dated March 10, 2010, counsel for the applicant wrote to request an adjournment of the March 17, 2010 hearing date due to a medical condition experienced by counsel. Counsel states that he suffered a major relapse of this condition in February 2010 and has been debilitated over the past four to six weeks, during which time he has been unable to work a full day, or use the keyboard or bend his neck during the few hours he can work. Counsel states that he has given away files to other counsel where this has been feasible and has hired a part-time associate to assist, but that it is not possible for her to assume carriage of this Application. He also states that he has been unable to get competent counsel to stand in for him at the hearing. He states that he requires two to three months to provide a pragmatic alternative to the client and to the Tribunal, and that if he cannot act at that stage, he will ensure that he has someone ready and able to do so.

3The respondents object to any adjournment. They state that despite counsel’s claim of an ongoing illness, he has taken no steps to assign this file to another lawyer nor has he brought any timely request for an adjournment. The respondents submit that the material provided by applicant’s counsel to support his request do not provide an explanation with respect to his inability prepare for or attend the hearing.

4While the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments does not specifically apply to Transition Applications, nonetheless the principles set out in this Information Bulletin are equally applicable to Transition Applications.

5The Tribunal’s Information Bulletin provides that requests to reschedule must be made within five (5) days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournments will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The Information Bulletin states the following regarding requests for adjournments:

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 alternate dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing. Alternate 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.

6There is no doubt that it would have been preferable for applicant’s counsel to have made his request for an adjournment at an earlier stage, and I also do not doubt that this request has caused some inconvenience to the respondent. At the same time, it appears clear from counsel’s correspondence that he suffered a major relapse in his medical condition last month, which he states has significantly impaired his ability to work and in my view would prevent him from attending the hearing and being properly able to represent his client.

7While the respondent takes the position that the medical material filed in support of the request does not confirm counsel’s statements, counsel’s letter is clear that this material is intended to “give a sense of what has been happening”, rather than to substantiate his statements. In other cases before this Tribunal, statements by counsel that they are too ill to attend a hearing have been accepted without requiring medical substantiation, in the absence of any reason to require such substantiation. In this situation, I am prepared to accept applicant counsel’s word that his medical condition has prevented him from being able to properly prepare for the hearing and effectively prevents him from attending on March 17, 2010.

8I also note that counsel has indicated that he has in fact taken steps to re-assign his caseload and to obtain assistance from a part-time associate in managing his files. However, he states that he requires a further two to three months to ensure that either he is able to prepare for and attend the hearing, or he has alternate counsel available. While I am prepared to take applicant’s counsel at his word regarding the seriousness of his condition, I also will hold him to his assurance that the matter will be ready to proceed in two to three months, whether with him as counsel or without.

9The adjournment is granted.