Ugbay v. ESTON Manufacturing, 2009 HRTO 749

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Woldeyesus Ugbay

Applicant

-and-

ESTON Manufacturing and Bill Banner

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: June 3, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 749

Indexed as: Ugbay v. ESTON Manufacturing

APPEARANCES BY

Woldeyesus Ugbay, Applicant ) No one appearing

ESTON Manufacturing and ) Meighan Ferris-Miles, Counsel Bill Banner, Respondents )

1This is an Application filed on August 15, 2008 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code of Ontario, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended. The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. By Interim Decision dated May 11, 2009, 2009 HRTO 611, (“the Interim Decision”) a hearing date of June 2, 2009, peremptory to the applicant, was ordered. On June 2, 2009, the respondents and their counsel attended the hearing. However, neither the applicant nor his counsel attended and neither contacted the Tribunal prior to the hearing to advise that they would not be attending. Tribunal staff was advised that the applicant’s counsel was in court in another city.

2After waiting a significant period past the scheduled start time, I commenced the hearing. The respondents asked that the Application be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had failed to comply with the Rules, the directions contained in the Interim Decision and the Case Assessment Direction dated April 29, 2009 and his failure to attend the June 2, 2009 hearing. I ruled orally that the Application was dismissed against the respondents with reasons to follow. These are the reasons.

3A hearing in this matter was originally scheduled for May 7, 2009. However, in the afternoon of May 6, counsel for the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal’s Registrar requesting an adjournment of the May 7 hearing date. The Tribunal directed the parties to attend the hearing and advised that the adjournment request would be addressed at the hearing.

4On May 7, 2009, the applicant attended the hearing as did counsel for the respondents. The applicant’s counsel was not present. In response to my question, the applicant indicated that he was not comfortable proceeding with a hearing in the absence of his lawyer. Respondents’ counsel advised that the respondents were agreeable to adjourning the May 7 hearing date on the condition that the applicant produce his documents and list of witnesses required by Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to the respondents within twenty-one days. He had failed to do so, contrary to both the requirements of the Tribunal’s rules and my Case Assessment Direction dated April 30, 2009. Both the applicant and the respondents confirmed their availability for a number of dates in June, including June 2, 2009.

5The hearing was adjourned. The Interim Decision set June 2, 2009 as a hearing date, peremptory to the applicant, and ordering that the applicant deliver his documents, list of witnesses and witness statements by May 19, 2009.

6Human rights applications are serious matters that evoke quasi-constitutional legislation, engage public resources and commence a legal proceeding against a respondent or respondents. A such, there is an expectation that an applicant take the Tribunal’s process seriously and respond to Tribunal directions and attend at the hearing of the Application. An applicant who does not, risks having his or her application dismissed.

7The applicant failed to attend the hearing scheduled after consultation with him and which was set as peremptory. There is no question the applicant received notice of the hearing. In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed.