HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Hetem Zeqiri
Applicant
-and-
Sanjak Aluminum Inc. and Ergin Kalac
Respondents
interim decision
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Indexed as: Zeqiri v. Sanjam Aluminum
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for February 13, 14 and 15, 2012.
2On October 1, 2009, the applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). On December 22, 2009, the respondents filed a Response, and on January 28, 2010, the applicant filed a Reply.
3On February 28, 2011 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for July 27, 28 and 29, 2011. At the request of the Applicant and with the respondents’ consent, the hearing was adjourned.
4On April 29, 2011 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Rescheduled hearing to the parties which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for September 21, 22, and 23, 2011. At the request of the applicant, who sought an adjournment of six months, and over the objection of the respondents, the hearing was adjourned pursuant to Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 1709 until February, 2012.
5On November 10, 2011 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing which informed the parties that the hearing was scheduled for February 13, 14 and 15, 2012.
6On February 7, 2012 the applicant’s counsel sent to the Tribunal a letter which requested an adjournment of the hearing for a further six months.
7The applicant had requested that the hearing be adjourned until February 2012 because he was deported from Canada in June 2011 after his refugee claim was denied, but was hopeful that he would have received a visa to return to Canada before February, 2012. Although he continues his efforts to obtain a visa, to date he has not been able to secure the necessary visa to return to Canada. He requests an adjournment for a further six months as he plans to be in Canada at that time.
8The events at issue in this matter go back to April 2009. The evidence grows staler with each passing day. Memories fade. The respondents have indicated that maintaining the respondents’ witnesses will prove difficult, if not impossible, because of the transient nature of workers in the corporate respondent’s line of work. Given his circumstances, it is mere conjecture that the applicant can or will obtain a visa to return to Canada within the next six months. The Interim Decision granting the adjournment of the hearing to February, 2012 was made “peremptory to the applicant, meaning that no further adjournment requests will be granted”.
9Under these circumstances, the request for adjournment is denied.
10Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of February, 2012.
”signed by”________________
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair