Vizcaya v. UJA Federation of Greater Toronto, 2012 HRTO 1846

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

David Vizcaya Applicant

-and-

UJA Federation of Greater Toronto and Doron Horowitz Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: September 27, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1846 Indexed as: Vizcaya v. UJA Federation of Greater Toronto

Introduction

1This Interim Decision is further to Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 1356 and recent correspondence from the parties.

2In the Interim Decision, I directed a half-day in person hearing to hear evidence from the applicant and the respondents about what occurred on August 24, 2010, and at earlier relevant events.

3The Tribunal scheduled a hearing for October 19, 2012, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

4The respondents asked that the hearing be adjourned because Mr. Horowitz is not available as he must report for military duty. The respondents advise that Mr. Horowitz will be available after the end of October. The respondents also advise that Mr. Horowitz is the person who can best provide evidence on behalf of the respondents about what occurred on August 24, 2010, and at earlier relevant events. He is also named as a personal respondent.

5The applicant sent a fax to the Tribunal on September 21, 2012, asking that be allowed to respond to the adjournment request by October 2, 2012. In the same fax, he indicated that his “complaint about the adjudicator Brian Cook” is outstanding and has not been addressed.

6On September 24, 2012, the applicant sent two emails which address the respondent’s adjournment request and which I take to be his submissions on that request. The applicant indicates that he opposes the adjournment request. His emails go on to express his opinions about the personal respondent and his view of the case. He also refers to his “overdue complaint about the adjudicator Brian Cook.”

7The applicant earlier asked that I recuse myself from the Application because the applicant alleged that I was biased. This request was dealt with in the Interim Decision and was denied for the reasons set out in that decision. It therefore appears that the applicant’s complaints about the adjudicator have been addressed.

8The respondent’s request for an adjournment of the hearing appears to be for valid reasons and should not unduly delay the processing of the Application.

9The adjournment request is granted. The Tribunal will re-schedule a half-day hearing, at which time I will hear evidence from the applicant the respondents about what occurred on August 24, 2010, and at earlier relevant events.

10The parties are directed to consult with one another to select five mutually agreeable dates for the rescheduling of the hearing, to be provided to the HRTO by October 12, 2012.

11If the parties do not respond as directed or are unable to agree on alternate dates for rescheduling, in accordance with the HRTO’s practice direction, the HRTO may select the date for the rescheduled hearing without the agreement of the parties.