Pollard v. Dafco Filtration Group, 2010 HRTO 1581

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Donna Pollard

Applicant

-and-

Dafco Filtration Group Corporation and Habib (Bob) Assaad

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: July 21, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1581

Indexed as: Pollard v. Dafco Filtration Group

appearances BY

Donna Pollard, Applicant ) Cecil Norman, Representative

Dafco Filtration Group Corporation and ) John Illingworth, Counsel

Habib (Bob) Assaad, Respondents )

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on April 9, 2009.

2On March 10, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Confirmation of Hearing Notice to the parties, which informed them that the hearing is scheduled for July 20 and 21 at 655 Bay Street, 14^th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, commencing at 9:30 AM. At the hearing, I dismissed the Application with written reasons to follow. The following are my reasons.

3Following the Tribunal’s delivery of the Confirmation of Hearing notice to the parties, the parties complied with Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure on disclosure of documents, but did not fully comply with Rule 17 on disclosure of witnesses. As such, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) on June 11, 2010, which directed the applicant to provide a witness statement by no later than June 25, and the respondents to provide witness statements by no later than July 9.

4The respondents complied with the Tribunal’s directions in the CAD, but the applicant did not.

5The applicant’s representative then sent the Tribunal a letter on July 15, 2010, which requested that the hearing dates be adjourned for up to six months because he was unable to contact the applicant by telephone or mail. He speculated that she may be ill, but did not provide any further details or documentary evidence, such as a medical note.

6The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1556, on July 19, 2010, which denied the applicant’s representative’s request because his inability to contact the applicant was not an “extraordinary” circumstance (as set out in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments), which justified delaying the hearing. The Interim Decision also stated that if the applicant did not attend the hearing on July 20, the Tribunal may dismiss her Application as abandoned.

7The applicant’s representative, the respondents’ counsel, and the respondents 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.

8I commenced the hearing at 10:00 AM and invited submissions from the applicant’s representative and the respondents’ counsel on whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application because of the applicant’s failure to appear at the hearing.

9The applicant’s representative stated that he met with the applicant on or about June 14, 2010, and provided her with a copy of the Tribunal’s CAD. He stated that the applicant had no intention of abandoning her Application at that time, but, despite his best efforts to contact her, he has not heard from her since then. He requested that the Tribunal adjourn the hearing in order to give him time to locate the applicant.

10The respondents’ counsel stated that the respondents were present and ready to proceed, and there was no evidence, medical or otherwise, to explain the applicant’s absence. He submitted that the Tribunal has a mandate to dispose of applications expeditiously, and requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application as abandoned.

11Based on the above facts, I am satisfied that the applicant was aware that the hearing was scheduled for July 20 and 21, 2010, but decided not to attend.

12The applicant commenced a legal proceeding when she filed her Application with the Tribunal. It is the applicant’s responsibility to attend the hearing and provide evidence in support of the allegations raised in the Application. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal is unable to proceed with the Application and there is no onus or responsibility on the respondents to provide evidence in response to allegations.

13Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.