Amin v. Blaisdale Montessori School, 2013 HRTO 108

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mahamud Amin

Applicant

-and-

Blaisdale Montessori School and Heather Wilson

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: January 22, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 108

Indexed as: Amin v. Blaisdale Montessori School

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mahamud Amin, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of creed. The Application is scheduled for a hearing on February 14 and 15, 2013.

2The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction on January 14, 2013, advising the applicant that he had not complied with his obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to file his hearing documents and witness statements. Pursuant to the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing dated June 25, 2012, the applicant was required to deliver these documents to the respondents and file them with the Tribunal by December 31, 2012. The Case Assessment Direction directed the applicant to file this material by January 21, 2013.

3On January 17, 2013, the applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing. In his request he stated he would be traveling with his disabled mother the last week of January 2013 and would be back in Toronto the first week of March 2013. As such, he would not be able to attend the hearing.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling states the following regarding requests for adjournments:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or hearing, described above. Requests for adjournments, particularly at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Therefore, the HRTO will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the HRTO will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.

5In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4, the Tribunal explained why 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.

DECISION

6The applicant has failed to establish exceptional circumstances to grant the adjournment. The applicant has known since June 25, 2012 that the hearing has been scheduled for February 14 and 15, 2013. He provides no information as to why he scheduled a trip at the same time as the hearing and provides no information about the nature of the trip itself. For example, he does not indicate the purpose of the trip, when the trip was booked and why his attendance is necessary, as opposed to another family member. He did not request the adjournment until the Case Assessment Direction was issued, less than one month before the scheduled hearing dates. When hearing dates are set, parties are expected to respect them. It would not be fair, just or expeditious to adjourn the hearing because a party scheduled a trip during the same time as the hearing. For these reasons, the adjournment request is denied.

7The applicant must file his pre-hearing documents as directed in the Case Assessment Direction. The hearing will proceed on February 14, 2013. If the applicant fails to attend the hearing on this date, the application may be dismissed as abandoned as advised in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing dated June 25, 2012.