HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
David Jayaraj
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Police Services Board and Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Jayaraj v. Toronto Police Services Board
APPEARANCES
David Jayaraj, Applicant ) No one appearing )
Toronto Police Services Board, Respondent ) No one appearing
Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service, ) Naomi E. Calla, Counsel
Respondent )
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on July 16, 2010.
2Pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated August 9, 2011, the Tribunal directed that a Summary Hearing would be scheduled by way of conference call. This direction was made pursuant to Rules 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application would succeed. The CAD also directed the applicant to respond to respondents’ submissions that some of the allegations were untimely and/or have been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.
3A Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the parties on September 15, 2011 advising that the summary hearing would commence at 1:30 pm on October 17, 2011. The Notice of Summary Hearing also advised the parties how to connect to the conference call. The Notice of Summary Hearing was emailed to the applicant at the email address he provided on his Application and from which he had previously sent the Tribunal communications.
4Prior to the hearing, the respondent Chief of Police filed documents and a case brief upon which it intended to rely.
5The summary hearing was convened by conference call on October 17, 2011 at the scheduled time. Counsel for the respondent Chief of Police was present, but neither the applicant nor the respondent Toronto Police Services Board was present. I advised counsel for the respondent Chief of Police that the hearing would be held down until 2:00 pm or whenever the applicant attended on the call. At 2:00 pm, the applicant was not present on the call: neither was the respondent Toronto Police Services Board.
6Subsequent to the conference call, counsel for the respondent Toronto Police Services Board sent an email to the Tribunal confirming that she received the Notice of Summary Hearing and the respondent Chief of Police’s documents and case brief. Counsel for the respondent Toronto Police Services Board submitted that her failure to call in was a result of “inadvertence due to another matter that arose”. The Tribunal did not hear from the applicant.
7I am satisfied that the applicant received timely and proper notice of the summary hearing. I was not aware of any indication that the applicant would not be attending the hearing. In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for his failure to attend the hearing, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.
ORDER
8The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of October, 2011.
”signed by”__________
Alison Renton
Vice-chair