Mohamed Yussuf v. Ottawa Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 1352

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mohamed Yussuf

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Services Board and Joshua R. Pulfer

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: September 12, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1352
Indexed as: Yussuf v. Ottawa Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mohamed Yussuf, Applicant

Megan Evans Maxwell, Counsel

Ottawa Police Services Board and Joshua R. Pulfer, Respondents

David Patacairk, Counsel

1This Interim Decision explains why the Tribunal is granting an adjournment of the hearing of this Application.

2The hearing is scheduled to begin on September 16, 2014. On September 12 counsel for the applicant requested an adjournment on the grounds that the applicant is in custody, has been denied bail and is due to appear in court on the morning of September 16. The applicant argues that these constitute exceptional circumstances that merit an adjournment.

3The respondents oppose the request and ask that the Application be dismissed as abandoned. The reasoning behind this position is that the applicant was the subject of a bench warrant because he absconded in the middle of his trial on a criminal offence, would have known that this would trigger a warrant for his arrest and thus knew that he could be arrested at any time while waiting for this Application to be heard. They say the applicant has a history of obstructing court proceedings and his inability to attend the hearing of his Application flows directly from his own misconduct. The respondents have expended time, money and effort in preparing for this hearing and will have to do so again if it is adjourned. They say that this is an unwarranted prejudice in the circumstances.

4While I understand the concerns the respondents have expressed about prejudice, it is appropriate to grant the request for the following reasons. First, the applicant will appear in criminal court on the morning that the hearing of this Application is scheduled to begin and cannot be in two places at the same time. Second, it would be inappropriate to declare the Application abandoned for the reasons put forward by the respondents. While it may be true that the applicant has a history of delaying criminal proceedings, there is nothing before me to indicate that the applicant is playing games with the Tribunal’s process.

5The circumstances here are exceptional and meet the criteria set out in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction that deals with adjournment requests.

order

6The request to adjourn is granted. The Registrar is requested to set a new hearing date.