Nacon Dioba v. Hudson’s Bay Company, 2010 HRTO 1295

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nacon Dioba

Applicant

-and-

Hudson’s Bay Company

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: June 8, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1295

Indexed as: Dioba v. Hudson’s Bay Company

APPEARANCES:

Nacon Dioba, Applicant ) No one appearing

Hudson’s Bay Company, Respondent ) David Pickwoad, Counsel

1This is an Application filed on October 13, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2A hearing was scheduled for Monday, June 7, 2010, starting at 9:30 a.m. in Toronto, Ontario. The applicant did not appear. The Tribunal waited for a half hour and dismissed the Application. The following are the Tribunal’s reasons.

3The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision dated June 1, 2010, which denied the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing: 2010 HRTO 1225.

4The applicant sent the Tribunal a letter by email on June 1, 2010, which referred to the Interim Decision of June 1, 2010 and stated, among other things:

If you have the joy of attending this hearing in my absence as I am the applicant you may do so, but I will certainly not provide you with the joy of screwing me up even more than what you already did.

5The letter made other statements which were insulting and abusive towards the Tribunal, and arguably threatening.

6The respondent attended the hearing at the date, time and place that was set out in the Confirmation of Hearing Notice, but the applicant did not appear.

7I am satisfied that the applicant was aware that the hearing was scheduled for June 7, 2010, but decided not to attend.

8The applicant commenced a legal proceeding when he filed his Application with the Tribunal. It is the applicant’s responsibility to attend the hearing to provide submissions in support of the allegations raised in his Application. In the absence of the applicant and any explanation for his non-attendance, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

9In view of this Decision, it is not necessary to decide whether the contents of the email correspondence from the applicant of June 1 would have led the Tribunal to make any other directions.