McIntyre v. Loblaw Companies Limited, 2011 HRTO 355

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gilbert McIntyre

Applicant

-and-

Loblaw Companies Limited, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and McLean Wood

Respondents

decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: February 17, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 355

Indexed as: McIntyre v. Loblaw Companies

1This Decision deals with an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). The Application was scheduled for a hearing on January 7, 2011.

2The hearing was scheduled as a telephone conference call. The applicant asked that he be allowed to attend in person and this request was granted. On January 7, 2011, the respondent Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) appeared at the hearing and the other respondents participated by telephone. The applicant did not appear either in person or by telephone.

3Prior to the hearing the applicant had asked for an adjournment on the grounds that he had the flu and also because he understood that the police would lay a criminal charge if he were to proceed with the Application as against two individuals. These individuals are not respondents in the Application and were not present or represented at the hearing. The adjournment request was denied.

4On January 7, 2011, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 65 which provided in part as follows:

By January 21, 2011, the applicant shall provide the Tribunal, and copy the respondents, with a detailed written explanation for his failure to appear at the summary hearing. If the applicant has a medical condition that prevented him from participating in the Summary Hearing, he must provide medical confirmation regarding this condition and why it would prevent him from participating either in person or by telephone. If the applicant believes that he is legally prevented from participating in a proceeding at the Tribunal, he must provide a detailed explanation for the basis for this belief with supporting documentation. He must also explain how he wishes the Tribunal to deal with his Application if in fact he is legally prevented from participating in a proceeding at the Tribunal.

If an adequate explanation is not received by January 21, 2011, the Application may be dismissed.

5By January 21, 2011, the Tribunal had received a letter from the applicant. The applicant states that he has been told by the police that he will be charged with criminal harassment if he proceeded with his complaint against the respondent Loblaw although it appears that this is related to issues concerning the two individuals who are not respondents in this matter. The applicant has not provided a detailed explanation or any documentation to explain why he would face criminal prosecution if he were to participate in the Tribunal process. Nor has he explained how he wishes the Tribunal to deal with his Application if in fact he is legally prevented from participating in a proceeding at the Tribunal.

6The applicant’s letter also states that he cannot proceed because of “medical illness”. He has not provided medical confirmation regarding this condition and why it would prevent him from participating either in person or by telephone.

7The applicant has not complied with the Tribunal’s direction as set out in Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 65. He has not provided an adequate explanation for his failure to attend the scheduled hearing. The Application is dismissed.