Gilbert McIntyre v. Loblaw Companies Limited, 2011 HRTO 65

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 MacLean Wood

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: January 7, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 65

Indexed as: McIntyre v. Loblaw Companies

APPEARANCES BY

Gilbert McIntyre, Applicant ) Did not appear

Loblaw Companies Limited and )

MacLean Wood, Respondents ) MacLean Wood, Counsel

Ontario Lottery and ) M. David Ross, Counsel

Gaming Corporation, Respondent )

1This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s failure to attend a hearing. The hearing was a summary hearing, pursuant to Rule19A.1, which provides:

19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

2The summary hearing was scheduled for January 7, 2011. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties in October 2010.

3The Tribunal’s normal practice is to conduct a summary hearing by telephone conference call. In this case, the applicant asked that he be permitted to attend in person. This request was granted and the Notice of Hearing confirmed that the parties could participate by conference call or in person.

4On December 20, 2010, the applicant sent a letter to the Tribunal seeking an adjournment of the summary hearing because he had the flu which had worsened other medical conditions that he suffers from.

5The respondent Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (“OLG”) consented to the adjournment request. The request was opposed by the other respondents. The personal respondent MacLean Wood is the Senior Legal Director, Legal Counsel to the corporate respondent Loblaw Companies Limited (“Loblaw”).

6The Tribunal denied the adjournment request. The applicant had not explained why the fact that he had the flu on December 20, 2010, would prevent him from participating in a hearing, either in person or by telephone, on January 7, 2011. On January 6, 2011, the Tribunal left a detailed voicemail advising the applicant that the hearing would proceed and confirming that he could participate by telephone or in person.

7The applicant left a voice mail with the Tribunal’s Registrar sometime later on January 6, 2011, indicating that he would not be attending the hearing because he was ill and also because he was prevented from appearing because a criminal harassment charge had been filed against him and he was concerned that he could end up in jail if he were to appear.

8The respondents appeared at the hearing on January 7, 2011. The respondent OLG was present at the hearing and the other respondents participated by telephone. The applicant did not appear. The respondents advised that they did not receive any communication from the applicant subsequent to the December 20, 2010 adjournment request. The respondents also advised that they were not aware of any legal proceeding that would prevent the applicant participating in the proceeding at the Tribunal. Mr. Wood indicated that there may be a proceeding involving the applicant and one or more of the people originally named as personal respondents by the applicant. However, those individuals have been removed as respondents.

9At the hearing, the respondents asked the Tribunal to dismiss the Application on the grounds that the applicant had failed to appear. I determined that before dealing with that request, the applicant should be given the opportunity to provide clarification concerning his failure to participate in the summary hearing.

10By 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.

11If an adequate explanation is not received by January 21, 2011, the Application may be dismissed.