Mukesh Chopra v. Beata Kratiuk, 2011 HRTO 2149

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mukesh Chopra

Applicant

-and-

Beata Kratiuk

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: November 30, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2149

Indexed as: Chopra v. Beata Kratiuk

1This is a continued Application scheduled for further hearing dates on December 6 and 7, 2011. By way of Case Assessment Direction dated October 26, 2011, the parties were directed to file statements of evidence in chief of all of the remaining witnesses they wish to call by November 23, 2011.

2On November 23, 2011, the applicant filed a number of supplementary documents. Neither party filed a statement of evidence in chief of their remaining witnesses.

3On November 24, 2011, counsel for the respondent wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the hearing dates be adjourned until March 2012 or later. In the alternative, the respondent seeks an extension of time to file the required evidence.

4In support of its request, the respondent argues that delays in court scheduling in a related court matter make it appropriate to defer these proceedings until the court proceedings are completed. Counsel also relies on his busy schedule in October as a basis for his request, and as an excuse for his failure to comply with the Tribunal’s order.

5On November 26, 2011, the applicant filed documents in which he opposed the respondent’s request for an adjournment. He argued that the respondent has “deliberately” delayed these proceedings, while continuing with “reprisals” against the applicant.

6I am not persuaded by the respondent’s submissions. Counsel waited until the deadline had passed to make the request. From this I might infer that the respondent had no serious intention of even trying to comply with the Tribunal’s order.

7Both parties to this matter have a history of not complying with the Rules and orders of the Tribunal.

order

8The respondent’s request for an adjournment is denied. The hearing will continue on December 6, 2011. Any issues related to admissibility of evidence will be heard at the outset of the first day.