Abdalla Mohammed Ali v. AVIS Budget Group and Ajmer Pabla, 2016 HRTO 282

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Abdalla Mohammed Ali

Applicant

-and-

AVIS Budget Group and Ajmer Pabla

Respondents

-and-

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 175

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: March 2, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 282

Indexed as: Ali v. AVIS Budget Group

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Abdalla Mohammed Ali, Applicant

Harry Kopyto, Representative

Introduction

1By Interim Decision dated September 18, 2015 (2015 HRTO 1243), I held Mr. Kopyto could represent the applicant in this matter. In that Decision, I indicated that the next step in this proceeding was a preliminary hearing to determine whether the substance of the Application had been appropriately dealt with in a grievance arbitration decision.

2On October 1, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Preliminary Hearing setting December 7, 2015 as the date for the preliminary hearing. Due to the unavailability of the parties to attend the preliminary hearing on that date, it was subsequently rescheduled to March 7, 2016 by Notice of Preliminary Hearing dated October 21, 2015.

3By letter dated February 23, 2016, Mr. Kopyto advised the Tribunal that he was no longer able to represent the applicant and requested that the preliminary hearing scheduled for March 7, 2016 be rescheduled to a later date to enable the applicant to obtain representation.

4For the reasons that follow, the request for an adjournment of the preliminary hearing on March 7, 2016 is denied.

Decision

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states, in part:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournment outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a 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.

6In addition, on the specific issue of unavailability of counsel, in Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 534 at paragraph 6, the Tribunal held that the unavailability of counsel was not an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment:

The decision of a party to retain counsel after a hearing is scheduled is not the type of circumstance that would justify a request for an adjournment. Absent exceptional circumstances, a party must find counsel who is available on the date already scheduled…

7The applicant has been aware of the March 7, 2016 hearing date since October 21, 2015. Mr. Kopyto has provided no explanation as to why he can no longer represent the applicant. The fact that legal counsel is unavailable to attend a hearing does not constitute an exceptional circumstance upon which to grant an adjournment. This Application was filed in 2011 and it is important that it not be delayed any longer.

order

8The applicant’s request for an adjournment of the preliminary hearing is denied. The preliminary hearing will proceed by teleconference at 9:30 a.m. on March 7, 2016.