Mohammad-Zadeh v. Davis Henderson Limited Partnership by its general partner Davis Henderson G.P. Inc., 2013 HRTO 855

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Mona Mohammad-Zadeh Applicant

-and-

Davis Henderson Limited Partnership by its general partner Davis Henderson G.P. Inc. and Raheel Irfan Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: May 17, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 855 Indexed as: Mohammad-Zadeh v. Davis Henderson Limited Partnership by its general partner Davis Henderson G.P. Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mona Mohammad-Zadeh, Applicant Andrea Wobick, Counsel

Davis Henderson Limited Partnership by its general partner Davis Henderson G.P. Inc., Respondent Allyson M. Fischer, Counsel

Raheel Irfan, Respondent Tyler Inkster, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s adjournment request. It also orders deadlines for the filing of the applicant’s hearing materials and advises the parties of additional witnesses whose testimony likely would be of assistance to the Tribunal.

Adjournment Request

2The hearing of this matter is scheduled for June 3-5, 2013. The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing (“Notice”) was sent to the parties on November 23, 2012. The Notice advised the parties that April 22, 2013 was the deadline by which they were required to exchange with each other, and file with the Tribunal, the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing and their witness statements (Rules 16 and 17 of Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). The applicant did not file the required materials.

3By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated May 9, 2013, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file the required materials by May 16, 2013 or the Application might be dismissed.

4By e-mail dated May 15, 2013, the applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that she was still seeking legal counsel. On May 17, 2013, the Tribunal received a letter from counsel at Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP advising that she has been retained to represent the applicant.

5The 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 ten-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.

6As the Practice Direction makes clear the Tribunal, only in exceptional circumstances will the Tribunal grant adjournment requests made outside the 10-day period for rescheduling requests.

7In my view, the applicant’s failure to retain counsel until two weeks before the hearing is not an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment. See, for example, Alijohn v. Spectra Aluminum Products, 2012 HRTO 577; Pazhaidam v. North York General Hospital, 2011 HRTO 1663; Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660.

8Therefore, the applicant’s adjournment request is denied. The applicant shall file the materials required under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) by the date set out below.

Witnesses at hearing

9Upon reviewing the parties’ materials, I wish to advise the parties, in accordance with Rule 1.7(o) of the Tribunal’s Rules, of additional witnesses that likely would assist the Tribunal in determining this Application.

10The applicant is advised that that it likely would be of assistance to the Tribunal to receive testimony from Ryan Singh.

11The respondents are advised that it likely would be of assistance to the Tribunal to receive testimony from Anita [last name unknown] who is referred to in the Application.

ORDER

12The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s adjournment request is denied.

b. Within seven days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant shall deliver to the respondents, and file with the Tribunal, the materials required under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules including all of the materials listed in the Tribunal’s CAD of May 9, 2013.