Amratlal Lad v. Corma Inc., 2012 HRTO 1739

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Amratlal Lad Applicant

-and-

Corma Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: September 14, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1739 Indexed as: Lad v. Corma Inc.

SUBMISSIONS BY

Amratlal Lad, Applicant ) Jason Beeho, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application on February 24, 2011 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of age and disability.

2The matter was originally scheduled for hearing on June 21 and 22, 2012. On June 8, 2012, the Tribunal received correspondence from Jason Beeho of Rubin Thomlinson LLP (the "Firm"), counsel to the applicant, requesting an adjournment of the hearing. Mr. Beeho advised the Tribunal that Aaron Rousseau, the lawyer with carriage of the matter, had recently left the Firm and there was insufficient time for another lawyer to adequately prepare for the hearing.

3By Case Assessment Direction dated June 14, 2012, the Tribunal granted the adjournment. The Tribunal found counsel's departure from a small firm may constitute the exceptional circumstances required by the Tribunal to grant an adjournment. The matter was rescheduled for hearing on September 27 and 28, 2012.

4By letter dated September 12, 2012, Mr. Beeho requested a second adjournment of the hearing. Mr. Beeho advised the Tribunal that the lawyer who was under his supervision and tasked with preparing the matter for hearing left the firm in the summer. He advised further that the associate who was to take over that assignment subsequently announced her departure from the Firm and is in the process of finalizing her exit.

5It is clear from Mr. Beeho's correspondence that the lawyers who have left the Firm or are in the process of leaving were charged with hearing preparation. It appears that Mr. Beeho is the lawyer with carriage of the file and he remains at the Firm.

6The hearing is scheduled to take place in two weeks. Most of the hearing preparation will have already been completed. Any remaining preparation can be completed by the second assigned lawyer who has not yet left the Firm and Mr. Beeho.

7The applicant has not established the exceptional circumstances that are necessary to grant an adjournment. The request is denied.

ORDER

8The adjournment request of September 12, 2012 is denied. The hearing will proceed on September 27 and 28, 2012.