Meikle v. Mississauga Seating Systems, 2012 HRTO 1702

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Maysadis Meikle Applicant

-and-

Mississauga Seating Systems, a division of Magna Seating Systems Inc. Respondent

-and-

CAW-Canada, Local 1256 Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: September 10, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1702 Indexed as: Meikle v. Mississauga Seating Systems

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Maysadis Meikle, Applicant Natalie Meikle, Representative

Mississauga Seating Systems, a division of Magna Seating Systems Inc., Respondent Laura Karabulut, Counsel

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 race, disability and reprisal. A hearing regarding the applicant’s disability-related allegations is scheduled on October 3, 2012.

2This Interim Decision addresses a request by the applicant made on August 28, 2012 to adjourn the hearing until February or March 2013. The applicant explained that her sister has been suffering a life threatening illness for several months and is hospitalized. The applicant’s sister had been the primary caregiver to their father and the applicant assumed these duties when she fell ill. The applicant states that she visits her sister at Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto and least five times a week, which requires a lengthy commute, since she lives in Mississauga and works in Cambridge. Unfortunately, the applicant’s sister has deteriorated recently and her family must soon make difficult decisions regarding her care. The applicant states that, in the circumstances, she has not been able to focus on her case and needs this time to focus on her family. The respondent has indicated that it does not object to the adjournment request.

3The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing and that outside that time adjournments will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the Tribunal grants adjournment sparingly and the consent of the other party is no guarantee that a request for an adjournment will be successful.

4In these circumstances, however, I am satisfied that the request for a brief adjournment is justified. The applicant’s sister is seriously ill and her condition has worsened to the point where the applicant and her family have potentially grave decisions to make about her care in the near future. In my view, these amount to extraordinary circumstances that warrant re-scheduling the hearing. The hearing scheduled for October 3, 2012 is adjourned. While the applicant’s circumstances are undoubtedly difficult, I am not satisfied that a four or five month adjournment is required. The parties are directed to provide their available dates for a hearing that are within 12 weeks of the originally scheduled hearing dates to the Registrar within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The Tribunal shall thereafter send the parties a notice confirming the re-scheduled dates.