Shamin Ara Bhuiyan v. Fairweather Ltd. and Prabhjeet Kaur, 2015 HRTO 1283

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shamin Ara Bhuiyan

Applicant

-and-

Fairweather Ltd. and Prabhjeet Kaur

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: September 25, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1283

Indexed as: Bhuiyan v. Fairweather Ltd.

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request to adjourn the hearing date scheduled for September 30, 2015.

2On April 14, 2015, the Tribunal sent to the parties a Notice of Hearing advising that the hearing was scheduled to take place in Toronto on September 30, 2015. The Notice advised the parties that if they could not attend the hearing on the scheduled date, they were to at within 14 days of the Notice to arrange for rescheduling. It stated that “After that, a hearing will be adjourned or rescheduled only in exceptional circumstances” and advised that requests for rescheduling and adjournment would be dealt with in accordance with the Practice Direction on Scheduling on the Tribunal’s website.

3The Practice Direction on requests to adjourn or reschedule reads as follows:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or hearing, described above. 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.

4In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4, the Tribunal explained why, even when there is consent, an adjournment of a scheduled hearing will not be granted absent exceptional circumstances:

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 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 these broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

5The Respondents sent an email to the Tribunal on September 21, 2015, advising that the Director of Human Resources, who is acting as their representative, requests that the matter be rescheduled to the end of October, 2015. The reason provided for the request is that the representative is “currently in Alberta”.

6The applicant has not made submissions regarding the Request for an Adjournment.

7The respondents seek an adjournment on the basis that their representative is currently out of the province. The respondents have been aware of the scheduled hearing date for several months, and have had the opportunity to prepare for the hearing or to retain a representative in sufficient time to prepare.

8In this case, I am not satisfied that the respondents have provided a reason that would justify granting an adjournment this close to the scheduled hearing day. As there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant adjournment of this hearing, the respondents’ request to adjourn the scheduled hearing days is denied. The hearing will proceed on the date scheduled.

9The parties are reminded of the availability of mediation/adjudication process.

10I am not seized.