Roger Plante v. Cemtol Manufacturing, 2009 HRTO 1713

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Roger Plante

Applicant

-and-

Cemtol Manufacturing, a division of Linamar Corporation

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: October 20, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1713

Indexed as: Plante v. Cemtol Manufacturing

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on January 19, 2009. The respondent filed a Response on March 11, 2009. The parties attended a mediation meeting on May 22, which did not result in a settlement of the Application.

2On August 7, 2009, the Tribunal sent the parties a Confirmation of Hearing notice by regular mail, which informed them that the Tribunal had scheduled a hearing of the Application on December 9, 10 and 11. The letter also stated that no later than 21 days from August 7, each party must deliver to every other party, and file with a Statement of Delivery, a list and copy of all arguably relevant documents in its possession.

3On August 11, 2009, the respondent’s legal counsel wrote the Tribunal a letter, which stated that he was not available on the scheduled dates, and requested that the hearing be rescheduled for dates in January 2010.

4On August 13, 2009, a Tribunal staff person attempted to communicate with the applicant with respect to his availability dates for rescheduling the hearing. The staff person called the applicant at the telephone number that he provided in his Application, but an outgoing message indicated that the number was out of service. The staff person also attempted to e-mail him at the address that he identified in his Application as the best way to send information to him, but the e-mail bounced back as undeliverable. The staff person also sent a letter to the postal address that the applicant provided in his Application, but the letter was returned to the Tribunal with a sticker that stated: “MOVED/UNKNOWN”.

5On August 31, 2009, the respondent’s legal counsel wrote the Tribunal a letter, which stated that she was unable to deliver the respondent’s list and copy of arguably relevant documents to the applicant because Purolator informed her that the applicant no longer lives at the address that he provided in his Application. The letter further stated that respondent did not receive a list and copy of the applicant’s arguably relevant documents by the deadline set out in the Confirmation of Hearing Notice.

6On September 15, 2009, the Tribunal’s Registrar sent the applicant a letter by regular mail, which stated that he had not responded to the Tribunal’s request for new dates for the hearing. The letter further stated: “If you do not respond within ten days of the date of this letter, the Tribunal will deem you to have abandoned the Application and close the file.” The letter was returned to the Tribunal with a sticker that stated: “MOVED/UNKNOWN”.

7To date, the applicant has not communicated with the Tribunal, and has not filed a Statement of Delivery with respect to the disclosure of a list and copy of all arguably relevant documents in his possession to the respondent.

8Furthermore, Rule 1.13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that a party must notify the Tribunal and all parties and their representatives, in writing, of any change in their contact information, as soon as possible. The applicant has not notified the Tribunal and the respondent of any change in his contact information.

9In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.