HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Bill Koitsis
Applicant
-and-
Ajax Automotive (2008) Inc. o/a Ajax Nissan
Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
Bill Koitsis
Applicant
-and-
Midway Nissan Ltd.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Koitsis v. Ajax Automotive (2008) Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Bill Koitsis, Applicant
Self-represented
Ajax Automotive (2008) Inc. o/a Ajax Nissan, Respondent
Israel Balter, Counsel
Midway Nissan, Respondent
Hermie Abraham, Counsel
1By Interim Decision dated June 16, 2015, 2015 HRTO 799 (“the ID”), the Tribunal determined that these two Applications should be heard together. The Tribunal determined that the hearing adjudicator would be required to making findings of credibility in both Applications between some witnesses who would be called in both Applications. The hearing was scheduled for July 22, 2015.
The Adjournment Request
2On July 9, 2015, Ajax Nissan wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the July 22 hearing date be adjourned to another mutually acceptable date. The reason for its request, it submitted, is that one of its witnesses and its representative, whom it named, is unable to attend due to medical treatments he is receiving in July and August. Ajax Nissan requests alternative dates in September and October to be canvassed with the parties.
The Parties’ Submissions
3The applicant opposes the adjournment request. He submits that the two Applications should proceed separately, as they were originally planned, and the Application against Midway Nissan could be held on July 22 as originally scheduled.
4Midway Nissan consents to the adjournment request. It relies upon its submissions, filed before the ID, in support of the two Applications being heard together. It submits that the cost/inconvenience of multiple hearings, the public interest in avoiding the multiplicity of proceedings, and the risk of inconsistent evidence/findings far outweigh any potential prejudice which may result from delaying the hearing until September or October.
Determination
5Ajax Nissan’s adjournment request is granted.
6As the Tribunal has stated its ID, both Applications arise, essentially, out of the same set of facts where there is an overlap in witnesses being called in both Applications, such that there is the possibility of inconsistent findings of credibility between witnesses if the two Applications are not heard together. This concern still exists.
7The Tribunal’s “Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments” makes it clear that it will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances, such as illness of a party, witness or representative.
8In this case, given the medical treatment of Ajax Nissan’s witness and representative, the Tribunal has determined that this constitutes an extraordinary circumstance, such that the July 22 hearing dates is cancelled.
9The Tribunal will contact the parties to canvass two consecutive hearing dates in September and October on which the hearing can be rescheduled.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of July, 2015.
“Signed by”
Alison Renton
Vice-chair