Mohammed Azizullah v. Firearms Safety Education Service of Ontario, 2016 HRTO 205

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mohammed Azizullah

Applicant

-and-

Firearms Safety Education Service of Ontario

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: February 23, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 205

Indexed as: Azizullah v. Firearms Safety Education Service of Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Firearms Safety Education Service of Ontario, Respondent

Nicole Godfrey, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the respondent’s request to adjourn the hearing scheduled for March 7 and 8, 2016.

2On September 2, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Rescheduled Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for March 7 and 8, 2016. The Notice also informed them that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments. The Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice, and requests for adjournments thereafter will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness, or representative.

3On January 20, 2016, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), which requested that the hearing be adjourned because the applicant had informed the respondent that he intends to file an RFOP to amend his Application. She stated that the applicant and the respondent are in agreement that the hearing should be adjourned. On February 3, 2016, the respondent sent the Tribunal an email, which reiterated its request to adjourn the hearing.

4To date, the applicant has not filed an RFOP to amend his Application. He also did not file a Response to the respondent’s request to adjourn the hearing, and the time for doing so has now passed.

5The respondent’s request to adjourn the hearing was made more than 14 days after the Notice of Hearing was issued to the parties. The Tribunal’s approach to late adjournment requests was set out in Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4:

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 [now 14 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 those broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days [now 14 days] that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

6There is no basis to grant the respondent’s request to adjourn the hearing. The applicant has not filed an RFOP to amend his Application, and even if he had, this would not generally constitute an extraordinary circumstance that warrants the adjournment of the hearing.

7Accordingly, the respondent’s request to adjourn the hearing is denied.