Arbab Yahya v. Sigco Industries Inc. and Reynaldo Rodriguez, 2015 HRTO 1555

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Arbab Yahya Applicant

-and-

Sigco Industries Inc. and Reynaldo Rodriguez Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Sheri Price Date: November 17, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1555 Indexed as: Yahya v. Sigco Industries Inc.

1This is an Application under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), in which the applicant alleges that the respondents infringed his rights under the Code.

2The Application is scheduled to be heard in Toronto on December 9 and 10, 2015.

3This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request for a change of venue for the hearing. In particular, the respondents request that the hearing be relocated to Waterloo, Ontario, which is where the corporate respondent’s business is located.

4The respondents submit that that the corporate respondent is a small manufacturing business that is required to meet very tight deadlines to satisfy customer orders. The respondents submit that bringing all of their witnesses to Toronto for the two-day hearing in December 2015 would significantly reduce staffing levels at the respondent business, with the result that it would be unable to meet its order requirements. (The respondents propose to call six employees as witnesses, two of whom they indicate are supervisors.) The respondents submit that relocating the hearing to Waterloo would make it easier for the respondents’ witnesses to attend the hearing and would cause less disruption to the business.

5The applicant consents to the respondents’ request. He indicates that it would be more “financially and physically accessible” for him if the hearing were held in the Waterloo region, where he resides.

6As explained in the Tribunal’s “Practice Direction on Hearings in Regional Centres”, the Tribunal schedules hearings in the following regional centres: Toronto; Hamilton; Kingston; London; North Bay; Ottawa; Sarnia; Sault Ste. Marie; St. Catharines; Sudbury; Timmins; Thunder Bay; and Windsor.

7The Tribunal’s standard practice is to hold hearings in the regional centre closest to the location of the alleged discrimination. However, the Tribunal may hold hearings in locations other than its regional centres in order to accommodate Code-related needs or other needs of the parties or their witnesses.

8In this case, there is no request that the hearing venue be changed in order to accommodate a Code-related need. However, the respondents submit that they have “other needs” that warrant holding the hearing outside of the one of the Tribunal’s regional centres.

9Having considered the parties’ submissions, I am not persuaded that the circumstances put forward by the respondents justify a change of venue for the hearing.

10I understand the parties’ concerns about the disruption and expense involved with the parties and their witnesses having to travel to a regional centre for the hearing of the Application. However, in determining where to hold hearings, the Tribunal has to consider not only the interests of the parties in a particular case, but also the institutional and public interest in having the Tribunal make the best possible use of its limited resources. As the parties will no doubt understand, convening hearings outside of its regional centres has implications for the Tribunal in terms of the time and cost associated with having adjudicators travel for hearings, as well as the resources involved in the Tribunal identifying and arranging suitable venues for hearings.

11As the Tribunal stated in Crow v. Keewatin-Patricia District School Board, 2012 HRTO 1108 at para. 15:

Requests for change of venue must be balanced along with the Tribunal’s commitment to a fair, open, accessible, just and expeditious process. As stated in Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4, “[t]he Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all parties before the Tribunal.”

12In addressing the respondents’ request, I am also mindful of the fact that most parties who appear before the Tribunal could put forward credible claims that having to travel to a regional centre for a hearing is disruptive to their lives and/or businesses. If the Tribunal were to relocate hearings in all such cases, it would represent a marked departure from the Tribunal’s current scheduling practices, and likely have a significant impact on the Tribunal’s resources. Accordingly, where there is no issue about the accommodation of a Code-related need, the Tribunal will only convene a hearing outside of its regional centres in exceptional circumstances.

13In this case, I am not persuaded that the potential disruption to the corporate respondent’s business as a result of being required to have its witnesses attend a hearing in Toronto, when balanced against the Tribunal’s responsibility to use its resources carefully, justifies relocation of the hearing to Waterloo. Although I am not unsympathetic to the respondents’ concerns, the circumstances in this case do not warrant a departure from the Tribunal’s standard practice of holding hearings in one of its 13 regional centres throughout the province.

14As for the applicant’s submission that it would be more financially and physically accessible for him to attend a hearing in the Waterloo region, I note that the Tribunal will not generally change the location of a hearing because of the financial costs associated with travel to the hearing venue: Crow, above, at para. 14. Moreover, although the applicant has indicated that it would be “more physically accessible” for him to attend a hearing in Waterloo, I do not understand him to be indicating that he has a Code-related need for the hearing to be relocated.

15In sum, the request to hold the hearing in Waterloo is denied. The hearing will proceed in Toronto, as scheduled, subject to the following.

16It may be more convenient for the parties to attend a hearing in Hamilton than in Toronto, which, as noted above, is one of the Tribunal’s regional centres. Within seven days of the date of this Interim Decision, the parties are directed to write to the Tribunal indicating whether they consent to relocation of the hearing to Hamilton. If they do, and subject to the Tribunal’s ability to secure a Masalit-English interpreter in the Hamilton area, the hearing will be relocated to Hamilton on the December 2015 dates already scheduled.

17As for the respondents’ concern that it is required to have six employees on standby to testify on both December hearing dates, this is likely not required. With a view to minimizing the disruption to the respondents, the Tribunal will convene a half-hour conference call in advance of the hearing at which the parties should be prepared to speak about the following, with a view to determining when the respondents’ witnesses will need to be available to testify:

a. How long it will likely take for the applicant and his other witnesses, if any, to testify (including cross-examination); and

b. The order of the respondents’ witnesses and how long each of them might be expected to testify; and

c. Whether the parties may wish to participate in the Tribunal’s mediation-adjudication process at the commencement of the hearing. This process will be explained during the conference call.

Orders/directions

18The respondents’ request to have the hearing relocated to Waterloo is denied.

19Within seven days of the date of this Interim Decision, the parties are directed to write to the Tribunal indicating whether they consent to relocation of the hearing to Hamilton. If they do, then, subject to the Tribunal’s ability to secure a Masalit-English interpreter in the Hamilton area, the hearing will be relocated to Hamilton on the December 2015 dates already scheduled. If not, the hearing will proceed in Toronto as scheduled.

20The Registrar will schedule a half-hour conference call in advance of the hearing to address the points in para. 16, above.