HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ismet Zabelaj
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Rebil Brown, Adam Durham and Barbara Frey
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: Zabelaj v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ismet Zabelaj, Applicant
Self-represented
Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Rebil Brown, Adam Durham and Barbara Frey, Respondents
Gordon Steinberg, Representative
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 housing because of disability and receipt of public assistance and alleging reprisal. The hearing is scheduled for August 7, 2012.
2On June 18, 2012, the respondents requested an adjournment of the hearing and suggested alternative dates. The reason for the request is that one of the respondents' witnesses is unable to attend due to "prior family commitments."
3On June 27, 2012, the applicant filed a response to the respondents' request for an adjournment, opposing the request. He argues that it is made "without any real reasonable reason."
4The hearing date was set and the parties advised by Notice of Confirmation of Hearing ("Notice") dated January 20, 2012. The Notice advised the parties that they had 14 days to advise the Tribunal in writing if they were unable to attend. The request for an adjournment was made six months after the Notice, not within 14 days.
5The Notice also referred the parties to the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments which provides in part as follows:
The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or 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.
6The hearing is scheduled to take place on August 7, 2012. The respondents have known of this date since January, and were given a period of time in which to contact the Tribunal if the date was not acceptable. They did not do so. One of the reasons parties are given this time to re-schedule is to afford them an opportunity to confirm the availability of their potential witnesses. (See Frost v. Great Blue Heron Charity Casino, 2012 HRTO 210). The respondents have not explained what steps they took to ensure the witness' availability for August 7, 2012, nor did they say when they told the witness of the date, and when the witness told them that he or she was unavailable. The respondents have not provided any details as to what the witness' prior family commitment is. Given all of these facts, I am unable to conclude that there are extraordinary circumstances present which would justify the adjournment of the hearing date.
7The adjournment request is denied, and the hearing will begin as scheduled.
8At this stage, when neither party has complied with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, Rules 16 and 17, it is not clear that the hearing will be completed on August 7, 2012. Also, without any information about who the witness with the prior commitment is, or what testimony he or she is expected to give, it is not clear as to whether the Tribunal might entertain scheduling an additional date at the conclusion of the evidence of the respondents' witnesses who do attend the one day scheduled. The respondents may address any need for additional hearing time at the commencement of the hearing.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of June, 2012.
Signed by
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair