Jason Thomas v. Siemens Canada Limited et al., 2010 HRTO 1889

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jason Thomas

Applicant

-and-

Siemens Canada Limited, Don Wilson, Valerie Pawlick, Tyler Soldan, Mark Breau, Brett Matthieson, Bill Hughes, Mason Shipka, Ian Tang, Se Jin Park, Hetal Joshi, Artur Palowski, Sathiy Satkunanatharajan and Vasasantharoopan Balasingham

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: September 16, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1889

Indexed as: Thomas v. Siemens Canada

1This is an Application filed on June 4, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges reprisal as well discrimination and harassment in the area of employment on the basis of race, colour, creed, sex, sexual harassment, sexual orientation, family status and marital status.

2Pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction issued on March 22, 2010, a half-day hearing has been scheduled for September 20, 2010 to consider the parties’ submissions on the issue of jurisdiction. The parties were also directed to serve to each other and file any materials they intended to rely on at the hearing 21 days in advance. The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing was sent to the parties on April 30, 2010.

3On September 13, 2010, one week before the scheduled hearing, the applicant filed a Form 10, requesting an extension of time. He seeks to have the hearing adjourned and he seeks additional time to file materials. On September 16, 2010, the respondents filed a Form 11 opposing the extension of time request.

4Having considered the materials filed by the parties and the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments, the request to adjourn and reschedule the hearing date and to provide the applicant with additional time to file materials is denied for the following reasons.

5The Practice Direction indicates that hearings will not be rescheduled merely because the date is inconvenient for the parties or their representatives. The applicant indicates that he is away on business and unable to reschedule to attend the hearing. The applicant has been aware of the hearing date and filing requirements for more than three months. The Practice Direction provides that if a party is unavailable for one or more scheduled date, they must contact the other parties and the Registrar within 10 days of receipt of the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to indicate their unavailability and to provide five alternative dates. The applicant did not do so, and he has waited to make his request one week in advance of the hearing date.

6In the circumstances, I do not find sufficient reason to grant the applicant’s request to extend his deadline to provide additional material or to reschedule the hearing date. The hearing will commence as scheduled at 9:30 a.m. on September 20, 2010.

7If the applicant fails to attend, a decision on the issues may be made based on the materials in the Application file and any evidence and submissions provided by the respondents or the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.