Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Nagy Riad Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of the Attorney General Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: August 9, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1370 Indexed as: Riad v. Ontario (Attorney General)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Nagy Riad, Applicant Self-represented
1This matter is scheduled for hearing on August 19, 2013.
2On August 7, 2013, the Tribunal received an email from the applicant in which he seeks the respondent’s consent to adjourn the hearing.
3For the reasons that follow, the applicant’s request to adjourn is denied.
DECISION
4In the email the applicant indicates that he has recently retained counsel and that she needs two months to review the documents and materials filed by the parties. The applicant is seeking the respondent’s consent to adjourn the hearing.
5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on requests to adjourn or reschedule reads as follows:
The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a 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.
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.
6In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 4, the Tribunal explained why, even when there is consent, 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.
7The applicant has not demonstrated any exceptional reasons for the requested adjournment. The applicant has represented himself throughout this proceeding. I find that the applicant had ample time to obtain legal representation and advice in a timely manner had he exercised some diligence. As there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant the adjournment, the Tribunal denies the adjournment request.
Dated at Toronto, this 9^th^ day of August, 2013.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair