Daniel King v. ELRUS General Partnership and Phil Garinger, 2011 HRTO 1868

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Daniel King

Applicant

-and-

ELRUS General Partnership and Phil Garinger

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: October 17, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1868

Indexed as: King v. ELRUS

1On May 19, 2009, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, and on September 3, 2009, the respondents filed a Response.

2On November 10, 2010, the parties attended a mediation at the Tribunal, which did not result in a settlement of the case.

3On May 24, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing is scheduled for October 26, 2011.

4The Notice set out the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure with respect to disclosure of documents and witnesses. Rule 16 requires each party to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a list and copy of all documents that it intends to rely on no later than 45 days prior to the first scheduled day of hearing. Rule 17 requires each party to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a witness list and brief statement summarizing the expected evidence of each witness no later than 45 days prior to the first scheduled day of hearing.

5In accordance with the Notice and Rules 16 and 17, the parties were required to disclose to each other and file with the Tribunal all the documents that they intend to rely on, a witness list and witness statements by no later than September 12, 2011. The respondents complied with Rules 16 and 17, but the applicant did not.

6On September 20, 2011, the respondents’ counsel sent the Tribunal a letter which stated that the applicant left a voicemail for him that indicated that the applicant would not be attending the hearing.

7On September 21, 2011, the Tribunal sent the applicant a letter which stated that he must advice the Tribunal by September 30, 2011, whether he intends to proceed with his Application. The letter also stated that if the applicant did not respond to the letter, the Tribunal may deem the Application to be abandoned and dismiss it.

8The applicant did not contact the Tribunal by September 30, 2011. On October 4, 2011, a Tribunal staff member called the applicant and left a voicemail for him about the letter.

9To date, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s correspondence, or otherwise contacted the Tribunal.

10In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application, and the Application is dismissed.