Meikle v. Mississauga Seating Systems, 2012 HRTO 2151

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: November 14, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2151 Indexed as: Meikle v. Mississauga Seating Systems

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Maysadis Meikle, Applicant Marcia Channer, Representative

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

CAW-Canada, Local 1256, Intervenor Adam Webb, Student-At-Law

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 December 20, 2012.

2This Interim Decision addresses a request by the applicant to reschedule the hearing. For the reasons that follow the request is denied.

3The hearing of this matter was originally scheduled on October 3, 2012. In Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 1702, the Tribunal granted the applicant’s request to re-schedule that date because of compelling Code related circumstances facing the applicant at the time. The Tribunal directed the parties to provide their available dates for a hearing that were within 12 weeks of October 3, 2012 to the Registrar within 10 days of the Interim Decision, which was dated September 10, 2012. The parties complied with this direction and they each indicated that December 20, 2012 was available. By Notice of Rescheduled Hearing dated September 21, 2012, the Tribunal informed the parties that the hearing had been scheduled on December 20, 2012.

4By letter dated October 19, 2012, the applicant’s representative informed the Tribunal that the applicant had retained her firm and stated the applicant was available for hearing between January 21, 2013 and February 28, 2012. By letter dated October 26, 2012, the applicant’s representative indicated that she was not available for hearing on December 20, 2012 because of a family matter out of the country and would seek the consent of the other parties to reschedule the hearing. The respondent does not oppose the request and the intervenor takes no position.

5The 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 does not guarantee that a request to reschedule a hearing date will be granted.

6In my view, the circumstances described by the applicant’s representative do not amount to extraordinary circumstances. After a hearing is scheduled, a party seeking to retain counsel must find counsel who is available on the date already scheduled. See LaFontaine v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care), 2012 HRTO 421 and Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 534. The hearing shall proceed as scheduled.

7The request to reschedule the hearing is denied.