HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Paris Odede
Applicant
-and-
Sanmina-SCI Systems Corporation
Respondent
CASE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE DECISION
Adjudicator: Mark Hart
Date: April 30, 2010
Citation: 2010 HRTO 940
Indexed as : Odede v. Sanmina-SCI Systems
APPEARANCES BY
Paris Odede, Applicant ) Not appearing
Sanmina-SCI Systems Corporation, ) Barry Kuretzky and
Respondent ) Daniel Chodos, Counsel
[1] This is an Application filed December 14, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on February 10, 2005.
[2] On March 10, 2010, the Tribunal sent a notice to the parties confirming that the Case Resolution Conference (hearing) in this matter was scheduled to proceed on April 23, 2010. On April 8, 2010, the Tribunal sent a further letter to the parties confirming that the hearing would proceed on April 23, 2010 but at a different location.
[3] The notices of hearing were sent to the applicant’s representative at the address that had been provided in his Application, consistent with other notices from the Tribunal that the applicant’s representative had received and responded to.
[4] On April 23, 2010, I appeared at the hearing at 9:30 a.m. and the respondent, their counsel and their witnesses were in attendance. Neither the applicant nor his representative appeared. When the applicant and/or his representative still had not appeared by 10:00 am, I contacted the Tribunal’s offices to see if any correspondence or other communication had been received from the applicant, and was told that no such correspondence or communication had been received.
[5] When the applicant still had not appeared by 10:30 am, I advised the respondent that, in the absence of the applicant notifying the Tribunal of some exceptional circumstances that caused him to fail to appear, it was my intention to dismiss the Application.
[6] On the following Monday, April 26, 2010, at approximately 1:00 p.m., the applicant’s representative left a voicemail message for one of the Tribunal’s staff members. The applicant’s representative apologized for not being at the hearing the previous Friday, and stated that she had had a couple of teeth extractions on the Thursday and wasn’t able to speak or do anything. She stated that she was unable to contact the Tribunal because she doesn’t have a phone at home or a computer. She further stated that the applicant is still in Africa, did not return to Canada for the hearing, and did not make any contact with her.
[7] A Tribunal Application is a legal proceeding commenced by the applicant. 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 where the applicant has failed to appear at the hearing and no evidence has been provided by the applicant in support of his allegations.
[8] The voicemail message left by the applicant’s representative does not provide any adequate explanation for the applicant’s failure to appear for the hearing and provide any evidence in support of his allegations. It appears that the applicant was not even in the country at the time of the hearing and failed to contact his representative or the Tribunal to indicate that he would not be appearing or to request an alternate hearing date when he would appear. In these circumstances, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of April, 2010.
“Signed by”
Mark Hart
Vice-chair