Janevski v. Ottawa Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 621

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Goran Janevski Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Services Board, Debra Frazer and Jimmy Mui Respondents

Decision

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: March 30, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 621 Indexed as: Janevski v. Ottawa Police Services Board

APPEARANCES

Goran Janevski, Applicant ) No one appearing

Ottawa Police Services Board, Debra Frazer and Jimmy Mui, Respondents ) Beth Turner, Counsel

Decision

1This is an Application filed on October 8, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination in the areas of contracts and employment. The respondents filed a Response and the applicant filed a Reply.

2In a Case Assessment Direction dated November 10, 2010, the Tribunal directed that a half-day summary hearing by teleconference be scheduled to address whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. A Notice of Summary Hearing by Conference Call (“Notice”) was sent to the parties by regular mail, on January 31, 2011. In the Notice, the Tribunal informed the parties that a conference call would be held on March 17, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. The Notice was not returned as undeliverable.

3At the commencement of the conference call on March 17, 2011, the respondents’ representative was present on the call; however, the applicant was not. It appeared that there was a typographical error in one of the two telephone numbers given to the parties, in the Notice, in order to connect to the conference call. Consequently, Tribunal staff contacted the applicant directly by telephone and provided him with a corrected telephone number, within ten minutes of the commencement of the conference call. At 2:00 p.m., the applicant was still not in attendance on the conference call, and the Tribunal has not otherwise heard from the applicant to date.

4Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

Where a party has been notified of a hearing and fails to attend, the Tribunal may:

a) proceed in the party’s absence;

b) determine that the party is not entitled to further notice of the proceedings;

c) determine that the party is not entitled to present evidence or make submissions to the Tribunal;

d) decide the Application based solely on the materials before it;

e) take any other action it considers appropriate.

5The applicant commenced legal proceedings when he filed his Application with the Tribunal. It is the applicant’s responsibility to participate in these proceedings by taking the necessary steps to pursue it, including participating in the summary hearing. The applicant has not done so and I am satisfied that he had notice of the summary hearing by teleconference.

6In view of the applicant’s non-attendance at the summary hearing, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.