HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Adam Good
Applicant
-and-
Honda Canada Mfg., a division of Honda Canada Inc.
Respondent
decision
Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha
Indexed as: Good v. Honda Canada Mfg.
APPEARANCES
Adam Good, Applicant ) Did not appear
Honda Canada Mfg, ) Jayson Ryder, Counsel Respondent )
1This is an Application that was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on August 1, 2008.
2The hearing was scheduled to begin on January 4, 2010. Pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction dated December 11, 2009, the parties were directed to prepare to make oral submissions regarding two preliminary issues on the first day of the hearing. The applicant did not attend the hearing. After waiting 30 minutes and verifying that the applicant had been properly notified of the hearing date and that no communication had been received from the applicant on the morning of the hearing, the Tribunal invited the respondents to make submissions on how to proceed.
3Counsel for the respondents requested that the Application be dismissed as abandoned by the applicant. In support of this request, counsel argued that the applicant’s non-attendance at the hearing was part of a long record of non-participation in these proceedings since the Application was filed more than 16 months ago. The respondents submitted that they have suffered prejudice, in terms of time and resources invested, in responding to the Application and preparing for the hearing. They also argued that the applicant’s non-participation has constituted a waste of the Tribunal’s resources and time.
DECISION
4Since the applicant filed his Application on August 1, 2008, he has not complied with any of the Tribunal’s procedural requirements or availed himself of any opportunity to engage with the Tribunal’s process. A summary of events that lead me to this conclusion is as follows:
The applicant did not avail himself of the opportunity to file a Reply to the respondents’ Response.
On March 16, 2009, the applicant left a message with the Tribunal confirming his mailing address and requesting that correspondence be sent to a personal email address. This was the last communication the Tribunal received from the applicant.
He failed to attend a mediation scheduled for April 1, 2009, despite having requested mediation in his Application and being notified of the date at the address provided.
He failed to respond to two Requests for Order During Proceedings filed by the respondents, dated May 26, 2009 and August 29, 2009.
He failed to fulfil his disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17, which require parties to provide copies of all the documents on which they intend to rely, and summaries of the intended evidence of witnesses, 45 days prior to the hearing. To date, the applicant has not furnished any evidence in support of his Application.
Despite being notified of the hearing at the mailing address and email address that he provided to the Tribunal, he has made no effort to seek time extensions or adjournments for the various deadlines and scheduled dates that have passed.
5On the basis of the above, I find that the applicant has abandoned his Application. The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of January, 2010.
“Signed By”
Faisal Bhabha
Vice-chair
2