Keith Goodale v. Assured Parkway Collision Inc., 2010 HRTO 2358

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Keith Goodale Applicant

-and-

Assured Parkway Collision Inc. Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: November 29, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2358 Indexed as: Goodale v. Assured Parkway Collision

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on July 2, 2009. A copy of the Application was sent to the respondent on May 3, 2010. In the Application, the applicant alleges discrimination with respect to employment based on disability and age. The hearing in this matter was scheduled for October 6, 2010.

2On September 15, 2010, the Tribunal received a letter, copied to the respondent, from counsel for the applicant. The letter requested an extension of 30 days to comply with a previously-issued Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1814, requiring disclosure of certain information, and a request for adjournment of the hearing “to avoid any prejudice to the respondent”. The applicant's counsel indicated that he was experiencing difficulties in locating and communicating with his client, and had been unable to do so since the Tribunal issued the Interim Decision.

3On September 16, 2010, the Registrar sent a letter to counsel for the respondent, asking for the respondent's position on the request by the applicant. On September 21, 2010, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Request”) from the respondent, copied to the applicant. The respondent's Request asked, among other things, that the hearing be cancelled and the Application dismissed.

4On September 27, 2010, after reviewing the response of the respondent to the Registrar’s letter, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) adjourning the hearing without prejudice to the respondent’s Request, and requiring the applicant either to comply with the Interim Decision and submit five alternative dates on which he would be available for a hearing, or to respond to the respondent’s Request for dismissal. The CAD noted that, if the applicant were to fail to comply with the above order, the Application might be considered abandoned and dismissed by the Tribunal.

5On October 29, 2010, the Tribunal received a letter from counsel for the applicant, copied to the applicant and the respondent, stating that he had been unable to communicate with his client despite his best efforts to do so.

6In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.