Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Jerry Smith
Applicant
-and-
Prodomax Automation Inc.
Respondent
Decision
Adjudicator: Denyse Diaz
Indexed as: Smith v. Prodomax Automation
appearances
Jerry Smith, Applicant ) No one appearing
Prodomax Automation Inc.,Respondent ) Ryan Conlin, Counsel
1This is an Application alleging discrimination in employment due to age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H-19, as amended (the “Code”). A summary hearing was scheduled for April 11, 2011 commencing at 1:30p.m. via teleconference.
2The applicant was not present at the hearing. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 1:50 p.m. before proceeding.
3I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing. The Notice of Rescheduled Summary Hearing by Conference Call (“the Notice”) was mailed to the applicant at his last known address on March 9, 2011. In addition to the Notice, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction dated March 2, 2011 in this matter. Neither of these documents was returned to the Tribunal.
4Rule 3.13 of Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure permits the Tribunal to proceed with the hearing, if a party has been notified, in the party’s absence and to take any action that it deems appropriate. This was communicated to the applicant in the Notice which clearly advised that if he did not attend the call that a decision would be made without his participation.
5The applicant did not attend the hearing although notified of the hearing. The respondent incurred the costs of attending at the hearing. The Tribunal also set aside the time and resources for the hearing, which are precious given the caseload of the Tribunal and the expense required to facilitate these hearings.
6In view of the applicant’s non-attendance, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.
Dated at Toronto this 26th day of April, 2011.
“Signed by”
Denyse Diaz
Member