Mohammad-Zadeh v. Davis Henderson Limited Partnership by its general partner Davis Henderson G.P. Inc., 2013 HRTO 894

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 23, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 894 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 second adjournment request made on May 22, 2013. It also orders deadlines for the filing of the applicant’s hearing materials.

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.

3By e-mail dated May 15, 2013, the applicant made a first request for 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. By Interim Decision dated May 17, 2013, 2013 HRTO 855, I denied the applicant’s adjournment request and set a deadline for the filing of the applicant’s materials.

4On May 22, 2013, the applicant’s counsel made a second request for an adjournment. In the alternative, she requested that the hearing and disclosure process be bifurcated between liability and remedy.

5The applicant’s counsel submits that the applicant was unable to retain counsel until May 16, 2013 due to certain mental health issues and her financial circumstances. The applicant has sworn an affidavit in support of the request for an adjournment. In the affidavit, she stated that she did not obtain full-time employment and therefore could not afford a lawyer until February 25, 2013. She states that her ability to retain counsel between that date and May 16, 2013 was caused by debilitating anxiety and depression. One of the lawyers at the law firm retained by the applicant swore an affidavit stating that the applicant counsel’s time from now to the hearing is very limited.

6The respondents object to the adjournment request but consent to the bifurcation of the hearing if the Tribunal orders it.

7As outlined in my May 17, 2013 adjournment decision, the Tribunal only grants adjournment requests in exceptional circumstances.

8I am sympathetic to the applicant’s circumstances, and the circumstances of applicant’s counsel. However, I must also take into account the respondents’ interests and, just as significantly, the Tribunal’s institutional interest in managing its resources. What may not be readily apparent to parties is that every adjournment causes a loss of hearing days which not only affects the Tribunal but also affects other parties who must wait longer to have applications heard. The Tribunal receives numerous requests for adjournments by applicants shortly before hearings in circumstances very similar to those in the present case. If all of these adjournment requests were granted, parties to applications would have to wait considerably longer to have applications heard and decided by the Tribunal. This would lead to a gradual decline in the effectiveness of human rights adjudication and enforcement in the province over time.

9Balancing the interests identified above, I find that the applicant’s second adjournment request must also be denied. The Tribunal has held in past cases that the financial inability to retain counsel is not an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment. Also, I am not persuaded that the applicant’s mental health issues, as identified in her request and affidavit, constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment.

10However, in the circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to grant the applicant’s request that the hearing and disclosure process be bifurcated between liability and remedy.

ORDER

11The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s adjournment request is denied.

b. The deadline for the applicant’s delivery and filing of the materials required under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules on the issue of liability is extended to May 27, 2013.

c. I will hear submissions at the hearing on the appropriate deadline for the applicant’s materials on the issue of remedy.