Ramadan Mustafa v. Corporation of the City of Mississauga, 2012 HRTO 1218

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ramadan Mustafa

Applicant

-and-

Corporation of the City of Mississauga

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: June 20, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1218 Indexed as: Mustafa v. Mississauga (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ramadan Mustafa, Applicant

Self-represented

Corporation of the City of Mississauga, Respondent

Lauri A. Reesor, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) on February 23, 2010, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability. The Application is scheduled for a hearing in Toronto on June 25, 26 and 27, 2012, but the parties have each e-mailed the Tribunal today to advise that they have settled “in principle” and would like to have the dates for the hearing next week released. Essentially, the parties have made a request for an adjournment on consent.

2The Tribunal’s “Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments” reads as follows:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a hearing, described above. Requests for adjournments, particularly at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Therefore, the HRTO will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the HRTO will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent…

The HRTO typically will not adjourn a hearing date because the parties wish to “engage in settlement discussions” or are “close to a deal.” The HRTO encourages mediation and settlements, and will assist the parties in this regard… However, the HRTO discourages the cancellation or adjournment of hearing dates so that the parties can explore settlement.

3If reaching a settlement “in principle” means that the parties have agreed upon the terms of the settlement, then it is difficult to understand why obtaining signatures might take three business days in this age of fax and the internet. The last-minute request appears to imply that the terms are not finalized, and I am reluctant to adjourn the hearing which has twice been rescheduled, with the most recent dates having been set on March 8, 2012.

4The request to adjourn is denied. Should the parties file a Form 25 before the commencement of the hearing, then the hearing will obviously be cancelled. If the parties have not settled and filed a Form 25 by 9:30 a.m. on the first day of the hearing, Monday, June 25, 2012, then the parties should note that mediation-adjudication will be offered at that time.

5In the circumstances, the parties need not bring any witnesses to the first day of the hearing with the exception that the applicant should be prepared to testify in the event that mediation-adjudication does not occur or does not result in a settlement.