Madkour v. Alabi, 2016 HRTO 840

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Walid Madkour

Applicant

-and-

John Alabi

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Heba Ismail

Applicant

-and-

John Alabi

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: June 21, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 840

Indexed as: Madkour v. Alabi

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Walid Madkour and Heba Ismail, Applicants

Mindy Noble, Counsel

John Alabi, Respondent

Jide Oladejo, Representative

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request for an adjournment of next week’s hearing.

2The hearing of this matter is scheduled for June 27, 2016. The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing was sent to the parties on February 22, 2016.

3On May 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016, I issued Case Assessment Directions directing the respondent to file his pre-hearing documents as required by the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The respondent’s representative filed these materials on June 9, 2016.

4On June 20, 2016, one week before the hearing, the respondent’s representative emailed the Tribunal requesting an adjournment of the hearing. The reason provided for the adjournment request was that the respondent lost his first son, aged 25 years, four months ago and continues to grapple with the emotional fallout from the loss. According to the respondent’s representative, the respondent would have sought the adjournment sooner but he initially thought he would be able to proceed with the hearing. The respondent’s representative indicated that the respondent is unable to proceed as he is currently not in a stable frame of mind due to the loss of his son. The respondent requests that the Tribunal delay rescheduling the hearing for six months.

5The applicants did not consent to the adjournment request.

6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the ten-day period to request rescheduling of a hearing (…) 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, copied to the other parties.

7As the Practice Direction makes clear, the Tribunal grants adjournment requests made outside the 10-day period for rescheduling requests only in exceptional circumstances.

8I am sympathetic to the respondent for the loss of his child. However, I deny his request for an adjournment. While the death of a party’s child might constitute an exceptional circumstance in some cases, I do not accept that the death of a child four months ago justifies a request for the adjournment of a hearing filed one week before the hearing is to take place.

9In determining the respondent’s adjournment request, I must take into account the interests of both parties in a just, fair and expeditious proceeding. Just as importantly, I must take into account the Tribunal’s institutional interest in managing its resources. What may not be readily apparent to parties is that every adjournment causes a loss of hearing days which not only affects the Tribunal but also affects other parties who must wait longer to have applications heard. The Tribunal receives numerous requests for adjournments by applicants shortly before hearings. If all of these adjournment requests were granted, parties to applications would have to wait considerably longer to have applications heard and decided by the Tribunal. This would lead to a gradual decline in the effectiveness of human rights adjudication and enforcement in the province over time.

10Balancing the interests identified above, I find that the respondent’s adjournment request must be denied.

ORDER

11The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The respondent’s adjournment request is denied.

b. The hearing will proceed on June 27, 2016 as scheduled.