Muharrem Kerceli v. Massiv Automated Systems, 2016 HRTO 683

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Muharrem Kerceli Applicant

-and-

Massiv Automated Systems Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: May 18, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 683 Indexed as: Kerceli v. Massiv Automated Systems

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Muharrem Kerceli, Applicant Linda Dargavel, Paralegal

Massiv Automated, Respondent Eric T. Gresham, Counsel

1The hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled to continue on May 26 and 27, 2016 in Toronto.

2On May 9, 2016, the applicant made a Request to Adjourn the hearing dates. The reason for the applicant’s request is that he would like to attend his nephew’s wedding on May 21, 2016. The wedding is out of the country and he was planning to return back home on June 1, 2016.

3The respondent has opposed this request.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournment will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The Practice Direction states the following regarding requests for adjournments:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments 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.

5The Notice of Continuation of Hearing was sent to the parties on March 7, 2016. This Notice advised the parties that if they could not make the scheduled hearing dates, they must act within 14 days to have the dates rescheduled.

6The applicant did not make the Request to Adjourn within 14 days of receiving the Notice; therefore the Tribunal will only grant the adjournment if it finds that there are extraordinary circumstances that warrant an adjournment.

7I find that the reasons cited by the applicant are not extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment of the hearing. It is not clear how the applicant did not know that he would be out of the country on the scheduled dates at the time the Notice was received or in the 14 day period after the Notice of Hearing was issued.

8It appears that the applicant could still attend his nephew’s wedding on May 21, 2016 and return in time to attend the hearing on May 26, 2016.

9For these reasons, the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing is denied.

Additional Witnesses to be called by Respondent

10On March 29, 2016, the Tribunal issued an Interim Order granting the respondent’s request to call three additional witnesses when the hearing resumed on May 26, 2016.

11The respondent was ordered to provide witness statements for these three witnesses to the Tribunal and the applicant by April 11, 2016.

12As of the date of this decision, the Tribunal has not received any witness statements for these three witnesses.

13If the respondent wishes to call these witnesses, it must provide witness statements to the applicant and to the Tribunal by May 20, 2016. If witness statements are not served and filed by that date, the respondent may not be allowed to call those witnesses to give evidence.

Order

14The applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing is denied.

15The respondent must provide witness statements, for the three additional witnesses it had asked to call to give evidence when the hearing resumes, to the applicant and to the Tribunal by May 20, 2016.