Hetem Zeqiri v. Sanjak Aluminum Inc. and Ergin Kalac, 2011 HRTO 1709

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hetem Zeqiri

Applicant

-and-

Sanjak Aluminum Inc. and Ergin Kalac

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: September 19, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1709

Indexed as: Zeqiri v. Sanjak Aluminum

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Hetem Zeqiri, Applicant ) Alan G. McConnell, Counsel

Sanjak Aluminum Inc. and ) J. Paul Wearing, Counsel

Ergin Kalac, Respondents )

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for an adjournment of the hearing.

2On October 1, 2009, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). On December 22, 2009, the respondents filed a Response, and on January 28, 2010, the applicant filed a Reply.

3On September 30, 2010, the parties attended a mediation, which did not result in a settlement of the case.

4On April 29, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Rescheduled Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing is scheduled for September 21, 22 and 23, 2011. The Notice also informed them that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments. The Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within ten days of receiving the Notice, and requests for adjournments thereafter will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness or representative.

5On June 14, 2011, the applicant’s counsel sent the Tribunal an email which requested an adjournment of the hearing until February 2012. On June 29, 2011, the respondents’ counsel sent the Tribunal a letter which opposed the applicant’s Request.

6On July 29, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction, which requested written submissions from the parties on the adjournment Request. Both parties have now filed submissions.

7The applicant requested that the hearing be adjourned until February 2012 because he was deported from Canada on June 28, 2011 after his refugee claim was denied, but he married a Canadian citizen on June 23, 2011, and believes that he will be issued a visa to return to Canada within two to three months. He submitted that these are extraordinary circumstances that justify adjourning the hearing, and there is no evidence that a short adjournment will cause any prejudice to the respondents.

8The respondents opposed an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that the applicant has no standing to Request an adjournment because he has been deported from Canada, and is not entitled to be present in Ontario. The respondents further submitted that the alleged events occurred in April 2009, and maintaining the respondents’ witnesses will prove difficult, if not impossible, because of the transient nature of workers in the organization respondent’s line of work.

9The rationale for the Tribunal’s approach to adjournment requests was set out in Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 4:

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 [now 10 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 those broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days [now 10 days] that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

10In my view, the applicant has identified extraordinary circumstances that justify adjourning the hearing until February 2012, and there is no concrete evidence that the respondents will be prejudiced by the delay in hearing the case. Accordingly, the applicant’s Request to adjourn the hearing until February 2012 is granted. However, the rescheduled hearing dates shall be peremptory to the applicant, meaning that no further adjournment requests will be granted.

11The Tribunal directs the parties to communicate with each other, and advise the Registrar by no later than two weeks from the date of this Interim Decision, as to their availability for a rescheduled three-day hearing in February 2012. If no communication is received from the parties, the Tribunal may set the hearing dates without further consultation with the parties.

12I am not seized of this matter.