Millien v. 1474367 Ontario Inc., 2011 HRTO 759

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Felix Millien Applicant

• and -

1474367 Ontario Inc. and George Vlahakis Respondents

Decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: April 19, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 759 Indexed as: Millien v. 1474367 Ontario

Appearances

Felix Millien, Applicant ) No one appearing 1474367 Ontario Inc. and George Vlahakis, Respondents ) George James, Counsel

Reasons for Decision

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code") on December 10, 2009, alleging discrimination and reprisal in the area of housing because of race, colour, disability and receipt of public assistance. The Application contains numerous incidents of alleged mistreatment since 2005 involving over half a dozen Landlord and Tenant Board ("LTB") applications and proceedings.

2By Interim Decision dated November 17, 2010, 2010 HRTO 2288, the Tribunal scheduled a hearing by teleconference on the issue of whether, pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code, the Tribunal should dismiss the Application, in whole or in part, because the LTB has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. In that Interim Decision, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written confirmation to the Tribunal that he had complied with Rules 1.20-1.23 with respect to providing copies of all of his previous correspondence and communications with the Tribunal to the respondents. The Interim Decision indicated that if the applicant did not do so, the Tribunal may dismiss this Application as being abandoned.

3The applicant failed to provide confirmation that he provided copies of his correspondence to the respondents.

4By way of Notice of Conference Call dated March 8, 2011, the parties were advised of the date and time of the teleconference hearing (April 18, 2011 1:30-2:30 pm) in relation to the section 45.1 issue. The Notice indicated that if a party or party's representative failed to attend the teleconference, a decision could be made without that party's participation.

5The teleconference hearing was held on April 18, 2011 at 1:30 pm. The respondents were represented by counsel. Counsel for the respondents and the personal respondent attended on the conference call. The applicant did not attend the conference call. After allowing the applicant over half an hour to join the teleconference call, the hearing was dismissed orally as abandoned with reasons to follow.

6There is no indication that the Notice of Conference Call was returned as undeliverable or that the applicant did not receive it.

7Given the applicant's previous failure to comply with the Tribunal's Order and in the absence of the applicant and absence of any explanation for his failure to attend the teleconference, I find that the Application is abandoned and it is dismissed on that basis.