Iqbal v. Sheraton Gateway Hotel, 2012 HRTO 2095

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Syed Iqbal

Applicant

-and-

Sheraton Gateway Hotel and Andrew Simmers

Respondents

-and-

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (United Steelworkers) Local 9042

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: November 2, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2095

Indexed as: Iqbal v. Sheraton Gateway Hotel

1This is an Application under s.34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application is scheduled to be heard on November 9, 2012.

2On October 24, 2012, the Tribunal received a letter from the applicant requesting that the November 9, 2012 hearing in this matter be adjourned. The applicant submits that, in mid-October 2012, he learned that the paralegal who has been representing him in this matter had his licence suspended by the Law Society of Upper Canada. The applicant submits that he had assumed that his representative was taking the necessary steps to comply with the Tribunal’s requirements regarding the pre-hearing disclosure of the applicant’s documents and witness statements pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. However, this was not the case. Moreover, the representative is no longer permitted to represent the applicant in this matter. The applicant submits that he requires an adjournment of the upcoming hearing in order to give him sufficient time to find another representative or to comply with the Tribunal’s pre-hearing disclosure requirements on his own.

3The respondents and the intervenor consent to the applicant’s adjournment request.

4Having regard to all of the circumstances, including the consent of the respondents, I agree that the circumstances described by the applicant are extraordinary circumstances that warrant the adjournment of the hearing. The November 9, 2012 hearing is hereby cancelled. The Registrar’s office will be in contact with the parties regarding the rescheduling of the hearing in the new year.

5As noted above, the applicant has not complied with the Tribunal’s requirement that he provide the other parties with documents in his possession that are arguably relevant to the issues to be determined (Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.)

6Nor has the applicant filed with the Tribunal and delivered to the other parties copies of the documents upon which he intends to rely at the hearing; a list of the witnesses he intends to call; and a brief statement summarizing what each witness is expected to say when he or she testifies (including a statement for the applicant himself) (Rules 16.2 and 17.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure).

7The respondents ask that the Tribunal establish new deadlines by which the applicant must comply with the Tribunal’s Rules regarding pre-hearing disclosure. In the circumstances, I find it appropriate to direct the applicant to comply with his obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure by no later than December 28, 2012.

8The respondents indicate that, after receiving the applicant’s materials, they may seek to amend the documents upon which they intend to rely at the hearing, their list of witnesses and/or their witness statements. The Tribunal will address any such request if and when it is made.

9The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure may be found online at www.hrto.ca.

10I am not seized.