Ali Aslani v. Discount Car and Truck Rentals Ltd., 2012 HRTO 1438

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ali Aslani

Applicant

-and-

Discount Car and Truck Rentals Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: July 23, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1438

Indexed as: Aslani v. Discount Car and Truck Rentals Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ali Aslani, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Interim Decision deals with a second request from the applicant for the adjournment of a hearing scheduled for August 3, 2012.

BACKGROUND

2On June 22, 2012 the applicant emailed the Tribunal his first request for an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for August 3, 2012. The applicant submitted that he was out of the country for personal reasons and was unable to return to Canada for the hearing because he had to care for his elderly mother. The applicant provided no further information about his mother’s health or why he, in particular, needed to care for his mother. The respondent opposed the applicant’s request on the basis that the applicant had not participated in the Tribunal hearing process to date having failed to meet any of the requirements set out in Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and because the respondent wished to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

3In a July 5, 2012 Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 1328, I denied the applicant’s request for an adjournment. I found, based on the information before me, that there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify an adjournment of the applicant’s hearing in accordance with the Tribunal’s policies and jurisprudence

4In the July 5 Interim Decision I did state that I would consider a further request for an adjournment from the applicant should he provide particulars as to why he was needed to provide care for his mother and evidence that his mother’s health required his care. The applicant was given seven days in which to make any further postponement requests.

5On July 19, 2012 the applicant emailed the Tribunal to request an adjournment on the basis that he is the only son who could help his elderly parents, that his mother has breast cancer and that he will not leave as long as his mother needs him. He indicated that he will be in Canada again when “this matter is over”. I interpret this to mean when his mother no longer needs his care. The applicant sent a second email on July 19 repeating his request for an adjournment on the basis that his mother has breast cancer and needs the applicant’s help.

6The Tribunal provided copies of these two emails to the respondent by email on July 19. The respondent has not replied. However, the respondent did email the Tribunal on July 18 attaching two emails that it had received directly from the applicant dated July 17 in which the applicant states he is caring for his mother who has breast cancer. The respondent states in its July 18 email that while it empathizes with the applicant it nonetheless asks the Tribunal to dismiss his Application. The respondent notes that to date the applicant has not participated in the Tribunal’s hearing process as required and the respondent wishes to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

DECISION

7The Tribunal will not grant an adjournment request made later than 14 days after a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing has been issued unless there are exceptional circumstances. I am prepared to accept that the applicant’s care for his mother under the described circumstances warrants an adjournment when considered with all the other circumstances of this case.

8I did put the applicant on notice in my July 5, 2012 Interim Decision that any postponement request would require evidence that his mother’s health requires his care. The applicant has not provided this evidence. It is a concern that the applicant has not followed the Tribunal’s direction.

9However, I am also mindful that there have been communication issues in this case. The Interim Decision was initially sent to the applicant by mail to an address in Canada (and not received) and was only sent to the applicant by email on July 17. The applicant has quickly responded which may account for the lack of further information. While I understand the respondent’s interest in having this matter resolved as quickly as possible I do not see particular prejudice to the respondent if the August 3 hearing is adjourned.

10However, this matter will not be adjourned indefinitely. The applicant is directed to provide to the Tribunal and to the respondent five alternative dates that he would be available to attend a hearing in 2012. The applicant has 14 days from the date of this Interim Decision to do so.

11The Tribunal will issue a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing setting out the date for the rescheduled hearing. The Notice will also set out the applicant’s pre-hearing obligations to meet the requirements of Rule 16 and Rule 17. Failure by the applicant to either provide alternative dates or meet the requirements of Rule 16 and 17 within the required timeframes may lead to the Tribunal dismissing the Application as abandoned.