W.B. v. Lakehead District School Board, 2010 HRTO 1746

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

W.B. by his Litigation Guardian L.B.

Applicant

-and-

Lakehead District School Board, Melanie Shermack and Charlotte Psikla

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Shannon

Date: August 24, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1746

Indexed as: W.B. v. Lakehead District School Board

APPEARANCES

W.B., Applicant ) No one appeared )

Lakehead District School Board, )

Melanie Shermack and Charlotte ) Donald Shanks, Counsel

Psikla, Respondents )

ii

1This is an Application filed June 29, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The hearing of this Application took place on May 4, 2010.

2On January 26, 2010 the parties were sent a Confirmation of Hearing Date and Required Preparation letter from the Tribunal Registrar. In it they were advised that the hearing would be held on May 4, 2010, and that adjournments of that date would be allowed in only exceptional circumstances.

3On February 5, 2010 the parties were sent a Confirmation of Hearing Date and Venue indicating that the hearing would be held at the Valhalla Inn Board Room 2 in Thunder Bay.

4A Case Assessment Direction was issued to the parties on April 16, 2010. In it the parties were advised that the respondents’ request for dismissal and admissibility of documents will be dealt with at the hearing on May 4, 2010.

5The respondents attended the hearing and were prepared to proceed. They consented to a brief adjournment in order to allow the applicant some time to arrive late. The applicant and his litigation guardian did not appear. I telephoned the Valhalla Inn front desk to inquire whether the litigation guardian had called to explain her absence. She had not called.

6At 9:50 a.m. the hearing commenced. The applicant and his litigation guardian still had not arrived. Counsel for the respondents requested a dismissal on the grounds that the applicant’s failure to appear indicated that she wished to withdraw the Application and/or to proceed would be an abuse of process. Counsel completed his arguments at 10:05 a.m. The applicant still had not arrived. I granted the respondents’ request for the dismissal.

7Subsequent to granting the request for dismissal of this matter an email was opened indicating that the applicant’s litigation guardian had requested an adjournment in order to retain counsel and she was uncomfortable with having to speak to this matter. The email arrived late on May 3, 2010. I do not believe that it is necessary to reconsider my decision to dismiss this Application.

8The applicant’s litigation guardian was aware that adjournments would only be provided in exceptional circumstances. I am also satisfied that the Case Assessment Direction alerted her to the fact that an adjournment required a formal Request for Order During Proceedings with appropriate notice to the Registrar and respondents. The Case Assessment Direction also indicated that all parties must speak to preliminary matters at the hearing scheduled for May 4, 2010. There is no indication that there was a serious illness, accident or injury that may excuse the applicant’s failure to appear.

9Finally, this matter originated as a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on October 4, 2006. The applicant therefore had an extensive period of time for which to retain counsel and prepare for the scheduled date of the hearing.

10I am satisfied that the applicant’s litigation guardian’s behaviour suggests she no longer wishes to pursue this Application. She also failed to follow the various case management directions issued by the Tribunal. An informal request for adjournment that arrived late should not be allowed. There was not a serious reason for the request to adjourn, and it would be an abuse of the Tribunal process to continue.

11In all these circumstances, and after considering the respondents’ submissions, I dismiss the Application.