Abdulrahman v. Peel (Regional Municipality), 2016 HRTO 1629

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Enaam Abdulrahman

Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of Peel

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Date: December 19, 2016
Citation: 2016 HRTO 1629
Indexed as: Abdulrahman v. Peel (Regional Municipality)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Enaam Abdulrahman, Applicant
Kumail Karimjee, Counsel

The Regional Municipality of Peel, Respondent
Michelle Wong, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request to adjourn the hearing dates scheduled for January 30 and 31, 2017.

2On September 13, 2016, the Tribunal sent to the parties a Notice of Hearing advising that the hearing was scheduled to take place in Toronto on January 30 and 31, 2017. The Notice advised the parties that if they could not attend the hearing on the scheduled date, they were to, 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, even if both parties agree to an adjournment” 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 (“Vallentyne”) 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 respondent sent an email to the Tribunal on December 7, 2016, advising that the counsel originally assigned to this matter was no longer its representative in this matter. Rather, it advised, carriage of this matter has now been transferred to another counsel, who has just returned to the respondent’s workplace on November 28, 2016, following maternity leave. In a subsequent email of the same date, the newly assigned counsel indicated that she had a grievance arbitration scheduled for “that day” in another matter. She indicated that she was prepared to offer availability within a short time frame and there should not be any prejudice to the applicant.

6The applicant wrote to the Tribunal, objecting to an adjournment of the January 30 and 31, 2017 hearing dates. The applicant stated that the alleged discrimination occurred more than 2 years ago, if the respondent wishes to transfer the file to alternate counsel there is still time for the new counsel to familiarize herself with the file before the hearing, and the applicant is anxious to have the case heard without further delay.

7The respondent has been aware of the scheduled hearing dates for several months, and has had the opportunity to assign a representative who would have sufficient time to prepare for the hearing. Retaining counsel late in the day has not been viewed as a legitimate reason to grant an adjournment. See, for example, Vallentyne.

8In this case, I am not satisfied that the respondent has 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 respondent’s request to adjourn the scheduled hearing days is denied. The hearing will proceed on the dates scheduled.

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

10I am not seized.