HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Gregory Monck
Applicant
-and-
Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited and Bud Graham
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta
Indexed as: Monck v. Ford Motor Company of Canada
APPEARANCES
Gregory Monck, Applicant ) Self-represented
Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited and )
Bud Graham, Respondents ) Margaret Szilassy, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that he suffered reprisal in employment. Specifically the applicant alleges that the respondent employer terminated his employment because he was absent from work caring for his terminally ill wife and that the respondents’ actions violated his rights under the Code. By the time of hearing the applicant sought substantial monetary compensation in the range of $14,000,000,000.
2The respondents deny they have violated the applicant’s Code protected rights. They take the position that the applicant’s employment was terminated for reasons unrelated to the Code and seek dismissal of the Application.
3The Application was heard in London, Ontario over several days in March and May 2010. The applicant testified on his own behalf. Although the applicant had previously indicated he would be calling 16 witnesses, including his wife and mother-in-law, he provided written statements from his mother-in-law and his wife on the first day of hearing and did not present them or the other 14 potential witnesses to give evidence in support of his Application. I also heard from the personal respondent Bud Graham.
Preliminary Procedural Issues
4In advance of the hearing, a Case Assessment Direction was issued concerning a number of outstanding procedural issues.
5The applicant was directed to provide particularized witness statements for the 16 people whose names had been listed as potential witnesses in advance of the first hearing date, as no witness statements had been filed for any of them in accordance with the Rules.
6The applicant had also intimated in correspondence sent to the respondents and filed with the Tribunal that he may call witnesses to provide medical and financial information relating to his allegations. As no further details had been provided, he was directed to provide confirmation of whether he intended to call any expert evidence and to comply with the Rules concerning expert witnesses if that was his intention.
7Finally, the applicant had not filed a Form 11, responding to a Request for Order during Proceedings filed by the respondents seeking disclosure of arguably relevant documents. Given the lack of the Form 11, the Tribunal tried to contact the applicant to find out his availability to attend a teleconference call.
8The Tribunal was unable to obtain any information regarding the applicant’s availability to arrange a telephone conference call in advance of the hearing to obtain his submissions on the issues raised in the