David Frolov v. Human Rights Legal Support Centre, 2010 HRTO 2093

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Frolov

Applicant

-and-

Human Rights Legal Support Centre

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: October 15, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2093

Indexed as: Frolov v. Human Rights Legal Support Centre

appearances BY

David Frolov, Applicant ) No one appearing

Human Rights Legal Support Centre, ) Toby Young, Counsel

Respondent )

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.

2The Tribunal sent the parties a Confirmation of Rescheduled Hearing notice on May 21, 2010. The notice informed the parties that the Tribunal had rescheduled the hearing of the Application for October 13, 2010 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.

3On March 2, 2010, the Tribunal sent the parties a Confirmation of Hearing notice, which informed them that the Tribunal had scheduled a hearing of the Application on July 14, 2010.

4On March 11, 2010, because of the unavailability of the respondent’s witnesses, the respondent requested that the hearing be rescheduled to any available date after August 9, 2010. The respondent’s request complied with the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments (“Information Bulletin”), which was in effect at that time.

5On March 18, 2010, the Tribunal sent the parties a letter, which informed them that the hearing scheduled for July 14 was cancelled.

6On March 29 and April 8, 2010, a Tribunal staff person called the applicant, and left messages for him with respect to his availability for rescheduling the hearing. The staff person also sent the applicant an email to the same effect.

7On April 19, 2010, after failing to obtain availability dates from the applicant, the Tribunal sent him a letter, which drew his attention to Rules 3.4 and 5.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure:

3.4 The Tribunal may schedule hearing dates, or other dates in a proceeding, with or without consultation with the parties, as the Tribunal considers appropriate.

5.4 The Tribunal may finally determine an Application without further notice to any person who cannot be contacted by the Tribunal according to the contact information provided to the Tribunal by that person.

The letter also stated that if the applicant did not respond to the letter within 10 days, the Tribunal would proceed to schedule the Application for a hearing.

8On May 3, 2010, the applicant filed a letter with the Tribunal, which opposed the respondent’s request to reschedule the hearing. The letter did not provide availability dates for rescheduling the hearing.

9On May 21, 2010, after failing to obtain availability dates from the applicant, the Tribunal sent the parties a Confirmation of Rescheduled Hearing notice, which rescheduled the hearing for October 13, 2010.

10The respondent complied with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure on disclosure of documents and witnesses, but the applicant did not. The respondent also filed a form, which indicated that it had delivered its documents and witness list to the applicant.

11On September 21, 2010, the respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing with the Tribunal along with a form that indicated that it had delivered the Request to the applicant. The applicant did not file a respond to the Request.

12On October 8, 2010, the Tribunal sent the parties a letter, which informed them that the respondent’s Request was denied.

13On October 13, 2010, the respondent attended the hearing at the time and place that was set out in the Confirmation of Hearing notice, but the applicant did not appear.

14I commenced the hearing at 10:00 AM and invited submissions from the respondent’s counsel on how I should deal with the applicant’s failure to appear at the hearing.

15The respondent’s counsel requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and there was no reasonable prospect that his Application would succeed.

16Based on the above facts, I am satisfied that the applicant was aware that the hearing was scheduled for October 13, 2010, but decided not to attend.

17The applicant commenced a legal proceeding when he filed his 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 respondent to provide evidence in response to allegations.

18Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.