Puniani v. Rakesh Majithia CA Professional Corporation, 2016 HRTO 340

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Neha Puniani

Applicant

-and-

Rakesh Majithia CA Professional Corporation, Rakesh Majithia and Rooms Furniture and Accessories Inc.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: March 16, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 340

Indexed as: Puniani v. Rakesh Majithia CA Professional Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Neha Puniani, Applicant

Brenda Culbert, Counsel

Rakesh Majithia CA Professional Corporation and Rakesh Majithia, Respondents

Salma Sheikh, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision explains why the hearing in this matter will not be adjourned.

2On March 4, 2016, the respondents sent a request to adjourn the May 20, 2016 hearing. The respondents’ request was made more than 14 days after the January 4, 2016 Notice of Hearing. The Notice of Hearing states:

If you cannot attend the hearing on the date(s) scheduled, you must act within 14 days of the date of this Notice to arrange for rescheduling. After that, a hearing will be adjourned or rescheduled only in exceptional circumstances, even if both parties agree to an adjournment

3The respondents’ counsel requests the adjournment because of a family holiday and because she may not have sufficient time to prepare for the hearing because of other work commitments.

4The applicant objects to the adjournment and notes the request was made late, and in addition there are no exceptional circumstances.

Decision and aNALYSIS

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Requests for Adjournments states:

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.

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.

6As set out in the Practice Direction, and as confirmed in the Tribunal’s decisions, adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal has explained its rationale for taking such positions in a number of cases including Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660. 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 proceedings must consider, but the fact that Tribunal time reserved for the resolution of those parties’ disputes 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 [now fourteen] days after the hearing is scheduled may be denied. The Tribunal has balanced the interests of the parties in having hearings scheduled according to their and counsel’s availability with these broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five [now fourteen[ days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

7In this case, the respondents’ reasons for the adjournment request do not constitute exceptional circumstances. The respondents’ counsel’s vacation is not an exceptional circumstance, nor is the fact that counsel has another work commitment around the same time. The Notice of Hearing was sent out on January 4, 2016, more than four months before the scheduled hearing date, and there are still more than two months before the hearing.

order

8The respondents’ request to adjourn the hearing is denied.

9I am not seized of this matter.