Hunter v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 HRTO 705

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John Hunter

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: March 30, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 705 Indexed as: Hunter v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

APPEARANCES BY

John Hunter, Applicant ) No one appearing

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as ) Christopher Diana, Counsel represented by the Ministry of Community Safety ) and Correctional Services, Respondent )

1This Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), involves allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability and creed in the provision of goods, services and facilities. In essence, the applicant alleges that, while he was incarcerated, the respondent failed to provide meals that accommodated his disability and creed.

2The respondent states that the applicant made the following dietary requests: vegan diet (May 13); vegetarian diet (May 14); Halal and vegetarian diet (May 21); vegetarian, restricted lactose, no bean, Halal at dinner (June 6); and restricted lactose, no bean, Halal at dinner (June 26). The respondent denies the allegations of discrimination and states that the applicant’s religious, disability and lifestyle needs were fully accommodated.

3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing on November 26, 2009, advising that a hearing of this matter would take place on March 18 and 19^th.

4Counsel for the respondent attended the hearing on March 18, 2010. The applicant is represented by counsel, but neither he nor his counsel attended the hearing.

5Counsel for the respondent advised the Tribunal that counsel for the applicant had contacted him to advise that the applicant had been arrested earlier that week. The respondent advised that the applicant was, in fact, in custody on March 18, 2010. At the suggestion of counsel for the respondent, the Tribunal adjourned the matter until 1pm on March 18, 2010. During this time, counsel for the respondent attempted to communicate with counsel for the applicant. He was not able to do so.

6Although they clearly knew the applicant might not be available to proceed with the hearing on March 18, 2010, neither the applicant nor his counsel advised the Tribunal of this. The applicant commenced a legal proceeding and engaged significant public resources when he filed his Application with the Tribunal. It is the applicant’s responsibility to attend the hearing or to communicate any request for adjournment to the Tribunal.

7Neither the applicant nor his representative were present at the hearing. They did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain their absence or to request an adjournment. In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.