Chris LaFrance

Applicant

-and-

Aamco Transmissions Brampton

Respondent

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: December 9, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2133

Indexed as: LaFrance v. Aamco Transmissions Brampton

Chris LaFrance ) No one appearing

Aamco Transmissions ) Roan Wong and Brampton, Respondent ) Stafford Wong, Representatives

1This is an Application filed on May 26, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in respect of employment on the basis of pregnancy. The respondents deny the allegations.

[3] I am satisfied that the applicant had proper notice of the hearing. Neither of the applicant nor the respondent filed any documents or witness list in accordance with the Rules.

[4] Representatives of the respondent attended the hearing at the date, time, and place that was set out in the Confirmation of Hearing Notice. The applicant did not appear. I delayed the commencement of the hearing until 10 a.m., but the applicant did not attend, and did not contact the Tribunal.

[5] At the hearing, I invited submissions from the respondent on how I should deal with the applicant’s failure to appear. The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application.

[6] Having considered the respondent’s request, I ruled orally that the Application is dismissed, with written reasons to follow.

DECISION

[7] The applicant commenced a legal proceeding when he filed his Application with the Tribunal. It is the applicant’s responsibility to participate in this proceeding by taking the necessary steps to pursue it, including attending the hearing scheduled to consider the allegations raised in the Application. Filing an application engages the use of the Tribunal’s administrative, mediation and adjudicative resources in the processing of the matter. Filing an Application also results in the respondent having to invest resources and time to respond to the application and prepare for a hearing. For these reasons, an Application must be treated seriously.

[8] In the absence of any correspondence or communication from the applicant to explain his failure to appear at the hearing and as a result of his failure to appear and provide any evidence in support of his allegations, the Application is dismissed.

Chris LaFrance v. Aamco Transmissions Brampton, 2009 HRTO 2133

Case Summary

[3] I am satisfied that the applicant had proper notice of the hearing. Neither of the applicant nor the respondent filed any documents or witness list in accordance with the Rules.

[4] Representatives of the respondent attended the hearing at the date, time, and place that was set out in the Confirmation of Hearing Notice. The applicant did not appear. I delayed the commencement of the hearing until 10 a.m., but the applicant did not attend, and did not contact the Tribunal.

[5] At the hearing, I invited submissions from the respondent on how I should deal with the applicant’s failure to appear. The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application.

[6] Having considered the respondent’s request, I ruled orally that the Application is dismissed, with written reasons to follow.

[8] In the absence of any correspondence or communication from the applicant to explain his failure to appear at the hearing and as a result of his failure to appear and provide any evidence in support of his allegations, the Application is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 9^th^ day of December, 2009.

“Signed by”

_____________________________________