Shahenaz Alibhai v. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Inc., 2012 HRTO 1833

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Shahenaz Alibhai

Applicant

-and-

Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: September 25, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1833 Indexed as: Alibhai v. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Shahenaz Alibhai, Applicant Self-represented

Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Inc., Respondent Jonathan Maier, Counsel

1This is an Application filed on March 11, 2011 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 disability and age.

2This Interim Decision addresses a request by the applicant made on September 19, 2012 to adjourn the hearing scheduled for October 4 and 5, 2012. The applicant submitted that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (the “Centre”) has given her direction regarding submitting documents and information regarding how hearings before the Tribunal conducted. The applicant stated that the Centre recently informed her that it would not provide her with legal representation at the hearing. This decision apparently came as a surprise to the applicant, as she expected to have representation from the Centre for the hearing. The applicant stated that she cannot afford a lawyer and would like time to investigate whether she can retain counsel through Legal Aid. The applicant is concerned about her ability to represent herself at the hearing and therefore requests adequate time to find a lawyer through Legal Aid to represent her at the hearing.

3The respondent responded on September 20, 2012 and opposes the request to adjourn the hearing. The respondent noted that the applicant has asked for and been granted extensions to deadlines on several occasions in this matter. The respondent further noted that she managed the Application without legal representation thus far in the process and seeks yet another extension shortly before the hearing. The respondent submitted that the applicant has no right to obtain legal counsel in a hearing before the Tribunal and parties often appear before the Tribunal without legal representation. The respondent submitted that the hearing dates were set in February 2012, but she waited to September 2012 to retain counsel. In these circumstances, the respondent submitted that the applicant should be required to accept the consequences of her belated actions.

DECISION

4The 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. In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at paragraph 4, the Tribunal explained why, even when there is consent, an adjournment of a scheduled hearing will not be granted absent exceptional circumstances:

The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of proceedings before it. It expects to receive thousands of applications each year. The Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all parties before the Tribunal. Therefore, when an adjournment request is made, it is not only the interests of the parties to the particular proceeding must consider, but the fact that Tribunal time reserved for the resolution of those parties’ dispute will no longer be used. For that reason, among others, the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments indicates that even adjournment requests made on consent of the parties more than five days after the hearing is scheduled may be denied. The Tribunal has balanced the interests of parties in having hearings scheduled according to their and counsel’s availability with these broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

5In my view, the circumstances described by the applicant do not amount to exceptional circumstances that warrant an adjournment. The Tribunal does not require parties to have legal representation and self-representation is common before the Tribunal. The applicant has represented herself throughout the proceeding and received the Notice of Hearing, dated February 21, 2012, which advises that the parties must take prompt action if they wish to re-schedule hearing dates. However, the applicant made her adjournment request only two weeks prior to the scheduled dates and it appears that the applicant first pursued seeking legal counsel, through the Centre, only in early September 2012. Further, the applicant gave no indication of how much time she requires to retain counsel. Again, the Tribunal set the hearing dates in February 2012 and the applicant has had ample time to seek and retain counsel. In these circumstances, adjourning the hearing would not in my view be a fair, just or expeditious outcome.

6The request to adjourn the hearing is denied; the hearing shall proceed as scheduled.