Michael Bain v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, 2011 HRTO 217

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Michael Bain

Applicant

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: January 31, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 217

Indexed as: Bain v. Canadian Union of Public Employees

1This is one of two related Applications filed by the applicant on July 2, 2009, pursuant to 53(5) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The other Application, Tribunal File TR-0981-09, brought against the applicant’s former employer, has been resolved.

2The Tribunal received requests by the respondents that both Applications be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release and that the Application is an abuse of process.

3The applicant conceded that he signed the Release in question but resisted the respondents’ Request and indicated that he wished to make oral submissions in response. The applicant stated that he was under stress at the time he signed the Release and this “affected his ability to independently and competently sign” the Release. The applicant also stated that stress exacerbates a medical condition which affected his ability to comprehend the terms of the Minutes of Settlement that he signed.

4In a Case Assessment Direction dated August 25, 2010, the Tribunal directed that the parties, beginning with the applicant, deliver and file their submissions on the issue and, following receipt of these materials, a date for the hearing of the preliminary issue would be set. The applicant has never filed the materials required by this Direction.

5On December 8, 2010, the Tribunal wrote to the parties and noted that the applicant had filed none of the materials required by the Case Assessment Direction. The applicant was further advised as follows:

If the applicant intends to proceed further with this Application he will deliver and file his materials as directed in the Case Assessment Direction within 20 days of the date of this letter failing which these Applications will be dismissed as abandoned.

6On January 12, 2011, the respondent in TR-0981 provided a Form TR-10 executed by the parties to that Application indicating that it had been resolved. The TR-10 was executed on December 30, 2010.

7The respondent in this Application wrote to the Tribunal on January 28, 2011, requesting that this Application be dismissed as abandoned as the applicant had delivered none of the material required by the August 25, 2010 Case Assessment Direction and had not responded to the December 8, 2010 Direction set out above.

8The applicant, who is represented by counsel, has not responded to the various Directions of the Tribunal. In particular he has not indicated his intentions with respect to the further processing of this Application as directed in the December 8, 2010 communication from the Tribunal. In the meantime, the parties in the companion Application have resolved their dispute. In all the circumstances, I find that this Application has been abandoned and for that reason it is dismissed.