HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Farzaneh Ghasemi
Applicant
-and-
2261536 Ontario Inc., Swiss Chalet #1215
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist
Indexed as: Ghasemi v. 2261536 Ontario Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Farzaneh Ghasemi, Applicant
Alexandre Martel, Counsel
2261536 Ontario Inc., Swiss Chalet #1215, Respondent
Emond Harnden, Counsel
Introduction
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request for an adjournment of t the hearing which is scheduled for March 28, 2013.
2On October 30, 2012, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 2066, in which it ordered that a two hour teleconference hearing be scheduled to determine whether the Application should be dismissed for delay.
3On November 20, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties setting the hearing on the preliminary issue of delay for March 28, 2013. The Notice also informed the parties that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments. The Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice, and requests for adjournments thereafter will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness, or representative.
4On March 8, 2013, the Tribunal received correspondence by email from the respondent’s counsel stating that he was consenting to a request from the applicant’s counsel for an adjournment of the March 28, 2013 hearing. The respondent’s counsel attached a letter that he had received from the applicant’s counsel dated March 5, 2013, asking for the respondent’s request for an adjournment on the grounds that the applicant’s counsel had recently received notice of a hearing scheduled in Toronto for the same time and day.
5The Tribunal subsequently contacted the applicant’s counsel to state that he needed to formally request an adjournment from the Tribunal. On March 12, 2013, the Tribunal received a request for an adjournment from the applicant’s counsel dated March 11, 2013. The applicant’s counsel indicates that due to a scheduling conflict he is seeking an adjournment and that he already obtained the consent of the respondent’s counsel. The applicant’s counsel provides no further information with this request.
DECISION
6The respondent’s request to adjourn the hearing was made more than 14 days after the Hearing Notice was issued to the parties. The Tribunal’s approach to late adjournment requests was set out in Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4:
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 [now 14 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 those broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days [now 14 days] that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.
7Counsel for the respondent has described nothing exceptional about his recent scheduling conflict. No reason has been provided to indicate why this request for an adjournment has been made at such a late date or why another event should be afforded greater consideration than the hearing scheduled before the Tribunal. Though the respondent has indicated its consent to an adjournment, there is no indication of any exceptional circumstances that warrant the adjournment of the March 28, 2013 hearing.
8The applicant’s adjournment request is denied. The hearing will proceed as scheduled.
9The parties are reminded that the deadline to file hearing documents has been extended to March 22, 2013.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of March, 2013.
”signed by”
Eric Whist
Vice-chair