Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Ikram Abdulahi
Applicant
-and-
Toys “R” Us (Canada) Ltd. and Tony Maniscalco
Respondents
-and-
Freedom Staffing Group Inc. and The Staffing Edge
Intervenors
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sheri Price
Indexed as: Abdulahi v. Toys “R” Us (Canada) Ltd.
1As the parties are aware, the hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled to proceed on April 16 and 17, 2014 in Toronto.
2The parties have recently indicated their desire and/or willingness to participate in mediation at the outset of the April 16, 2014 hearing, with a view to exploring whether the Application can be resolved without the necessity of a full hearing. Accordingly, as the Registar indicated to the parties in an April 8, 2014 email, the Tribunal will offer the parties an opportunity to participate in its mediation-adjudication process at the outset of the April 16, 2014 hearing.
3On April 8, 2014, the Tribunal received an email from the intervenor, requesting that the Tribunal consider adjourning the April 16 and 17 hearing dates in the event that the Application is not resolved through mediation-adjudication on April 16, 2014. The stated reason for the request is to avoid having the parties incur potentially unnecessary costs and to provide the best opportunity to settle the Application.
4The Tribunal’s Notice of Hearing in this matter advised the parties that requests for adjournments would be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s “Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments”. That Practice Direction provides that requests for adjournments that are made outside the ordinary time limit for rescheduling requests, as this one is, will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances. In addition, the Practice Direction specifically states that in general the Tribunal will not adjourn scheduled hearing dates in order to afford the parties an additional opportunity to explore settlement.
5I understand the desire to minimize the costs that will be incurred in preparing for the hearing. However, the intervenor is essentially requesting that the hearing be adjourned in order to permit the parties to engage in settlement discussions. This is not a basis to adjourn the hearing. The desire to engage in settlement discussions at the outset of the hearing through the Tribunal’s mediation-adjudication process is not an extraordinary circumstance that warrants the adjournment of the hearing, particularly since the parties had an opportunity to participate in mediation at the Tribunal, before the hearing was scheduled. Accordingly, the adjournment request is denied.
6The hearing will proceed as scheduled on April 16 and 17, 2014, in the event that the Application is not settled at the outset of the hearing. Of course, it is always open to the parties to explore settlement discussions amongst themselves in advance of the hearing, if they wish to do so.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of April, 2014.
“Signed By”
Sheri Price
Vice-chair