Tony Triantafillou v. Soulfx Technologies Inc., 2012 HRTO 1160

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tony Triantafillou

Applicant

-and-

Soulfx Technologies Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: June 12, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1160

Indexed as: Triantafillou v. Soulfx Technologies Inc.

APPEARANCES

Tony Triantafillou, Applicant

Barbara Adamson, Representative

Soulfx Technologies Inc., Respondent

Bob Ebrahimzadeh, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of ethnic origin. A Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties on December 1, 2011 (“the Notice”), advising that the hearing would take place on June 6, 2012, commencing at 9:30 a.m.

2On June 6, 2012, all parties appeared with their representatives, and they attempted to settle the Application through mediation-adjudication. By noon, the parties had not settled, and the hearing was to proceed. The applicant requested to adjourn the matter because his employer expected him back to work after lunch, and, as a new employee, he was not in a position to request additional time off. The applicant noted that the Notice did not provide an end time, and he had not understood from the Notice that the hearing would be more than the morning. The applicant would not be able to attend the hearing if it continued into the afternoon. The applicant argued that the prejudice caused to the respondent by the granting of the adjournment would not be significant because the hearing, with 5 witnesses in total, would take more than the afternoon, and the parties would need to set a subsequent date anyway.

3The respondent opposed any adjournment. It argued that the Notice was adequate, and that all four of its witnesses had taken time off work to attend the hearing. It therefore argued that any adjournment would cause it prejudice. It took the position that if the applicant did not want to proceed with the hearing, then he should withdraw the Application. It urged the Tribunal to proceed, and, if the applicant were to choose not to attend the afternoon, then the Tribunal should dismiss the Application.

4I granted the adjournment on the basis that the prejudice to the respondent would be limited, agreeing that the hearing, if it were to proceed, would consume more than the afternoon so that it would be necessary for the parties to re-attend another date at any rate. Obtaining available dates from the parties, August 13 – 21, 2012 (incl.), I made the next date peremptory on the applicant, and advised the parties to be available for the entire day and to be prepared in the case that the hearing on the next date ran late into the dinner hour.

5In the interest of ensuring an efficient next day of hearing, I canvassed the applicant’s ability to provide further particulars as per the oral request of the respondent. The applicant’s representative undertook to provide, within two weeks of the June 6, 2012 date, full particulars, including when, where and by whom remarks alleged to discriminate because of ethnic origin were made. She also undertook to provide particulars with respect to the contents of the alleged remarks. The applicant is therefore directed to file these particulars with the Tribunal, with proof of delivery to the respondent, before June 20, 2012.

6The Tribunal has now set the date for the continuation of the hearing. It is August 21, 2012, commencing at 9:30 a.m. The parties must be prepared to attend the entire day until 7:00 p.m. The respondent need not have all of its witnesses attend until the afternoon.