Mohammed Ahmed v. Jirah Networks Inc., 2013 HRTO 1187

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Mohammed Ahmed

Applicant

-and-

Jirah Networks Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: July 8, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1187

Indexed as: Ahmed v. Jirah Networks Inc.

1This is an Application dated August 12, 2011, and 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 employment because of age.

2The hearing in this matter is scheduled to proceed on July 10 and 11, 2013. On July 4, 2013, the respondent requested that the hearing be adjourned in order for it to retain a lawyer, contact witnesses and arrange their availability. The applicant does not oppose the adjournment request.

3The hearing in this matter originally was scheduled to proceed on January 17 and 18, 2013, but was adjourned on consent. The parties were consulted to arrange mutually-agreeable dates for the hearing to be re-scheduled, and all parties agreed to July 10 and 11, 2013 as the re-scheduled hearing dates. The re-scheduled hearing dates were confirmed by the Tribunal by letter dated March 12, 2013.

4In the original Notice of Hearing dated June 1, 2012, the parties were advised of the deadlines for filing the documents upon which they intended to rely at the hearing and a list of witnesses they intended to call to give evidence, including a summary of their expected evidence. When the parties had not complied with these obligations, a Case Assessment Direction was issued on December 21, 2012, reminding them of their pre-hearing obligations and giving them until January 4, 2013 to comply. The applicant complied with his pre-hearing obligations on January 3, 2013, but the respondent did not.

5A further Case Assessment Direction was issued on June 27, 2013, once again reminding the respondent of its pre-hearing obligations and giving it until July 5, 2013, to comply. Rather than complying with its pre-hearing obligations, the respondent requested an adjournment.

6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a . . . hearing . . . . 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.

Where a party seeks to adjourn a previously scheduled mediation or hearing, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises. They must contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing.

The party making the request should contact the Registrar and provide the exceptional circumstances supporting the request and any alternative agreed upon dates. Where the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by email or fax, copied to the other parties.

7As the Practice Direction makes clear, the consent of the parties alone is not a sufficient basis to grant an adjournment in the absence of exceptional circumstances. There are broader institutional interests at stake, including this Tribunal’s commitment to fair and timely access to justice. In my view, these broader institutional interests come into play in the circumstances of this case, where the events at issue date back almost two years and where an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates already has been granted.

8The respondent has been aware of the re-scheduled hearing dates since March 12, 2013. It has had ample time to retain legal counsel if it wished to do so. The respondent also has been aware of its obligation to provide a list of witnesses and a summary of their expected evidence at least since the original Notice of Hearing was sent out in June 2012, and it was reminded of this obligation by the Case Assessment Direction issued December 21, 2012. The respondent has had more than ample time to arrange for any witnesses it wished to call to give evidence at the hearing.

9From a review of the file, it appears that the disclosure made by the applicant on January 3, 2013 was sent to the e-mail address provided by the respondent on its Response to the Application. It also appears that, since January 8, 2013, the respondent may have been using a different e-mail address. It is the respondent’s obligation to advise the Tribunal and the other parties of any change to its contact information. If the contact information provided by the respondent on the Response was no longer accurate or in use, the respondent ought to have notified the Tribunal and the applicant. It did not do so. In any event, the respondent received the applicant’s disclosure on July 4, 2013, almost a week before the commencement of the hearing, and no specific prejudice is identified by the respondent arising from its receipt of disclosure at this time.

10Accordingly, in my view, the respondent has not raised any exceptional circumstances that would warrant an adjournment of the hearing dates. The respondent’s request for an adjournment is denied.

11The hearing will proceed as scheduled on July 10 and 11, 2013, commencing at 9:30 a.m.