Shirmohammadi v. 2121200 Ontario, 2012 HRTO 1091

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shahin Shirmohammadi

Applicant

-and-

2121200 Ontario Inc., 2121812 Ontario Inc. o/a Ganz, Randy Langdon, Mohd Saheed Bin Maiden, Chris Kempling and Karen Butts

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: May 31, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1091

Indexed as: Shirmohammadi v. 2121200 Ontario

APPEARANCES

Shahin Shirmohammadi, Applicant ) No one appearing

2121200 Ontario Inc., 2121812 Ontario ) Jed Blackburn, Counsel Inc. o/a Ganz, Randy Langdon, Mohd ) Saheed Bin Maiden, Chris Kempling ) And Karen Butts, Respondents )

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 January 15, 2010, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability, race, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed and age. The allegation of discrimination on the basis of age was dismissed in an Interim Decision dated April 19, 2011, (2011 HRTO 773).

2A Case Assessment Direction dated March 13, 2012 (“the CAD”) notified the parties that a half day teleconference hearing would be held on May 29, 2012 to determine whether there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant can show a link between the allegations with respect to race, place of origin and ethnic origin and the events described in her Application, her submissions providing particulars filed to date, and any witness statements. The Tribunal faxed the CAD to both the applicant’s representative and to the respondents’ counsel the same day. Also on March 13, 2012, the Tribunal sent to the parties a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing advising the parties on how to connect to the conference call on May 29, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.

3On May 29, 2012, only the respondents’ counsel appeared at 9:30 a.m. I held the matter down until 10:00 a.m. at which time no one representing the applicant had joined the teleconference hearing, and the respondents’ counsel made submissions, arguing that I should dismiss that allegations with respect to race, place of origin and ethnic origin on the basis that the applicant had abandoned them.

4Counsel for the respondents argued that proper notice for the teleconference hearing was given to the applicant’s representative. He himself had received it by fax on March 13, 2012, which is why he was participating on the call. He pointed out that the applicant’s representative had a history of communicating successfully by fax with the Tribunal with respect to this file. He also pointed out that the applicant’s representative knew that the scheduling of the conference call was eminent and, in fact, the applicant’s representative had communicated to the Tribunal that he was available to represent the applicant at the teleconference call on dates including May 29, 2012. In summary, counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant had the opportunity to participate in the hearing, and, for some unknown reason, had chosen not to do so.

5At the conclusion of the respondents’ counsel’s submissions, I decided that I am satisfied that the applicant’s representative received timely and proper notice of the teleconference hearing. In the absence of the applicant or her representative, or any explanation for the applicant not participating, I found that the applicant had abandoned her allegations with respect to the grounds at issue in the teleconference hearing of May 29, 2012, and dismissed the allegations with respect to race, place of origin and ethnic origin. This interim decision documents my oral decision made at the teleconference hearing.

6Approximately one hour after the teleconference hearing concluded, the applicant’s representative spoke to staff at the Tribunal and said that he had missed the hearing because he did not have the telephone number to participate in the conference call. He subsequently e-mailed the Tribunal attaching a letter that explained that his son was unwell in the morning of the teleconference hearing, traffic was heavy, and he was therefore late to his office so that he missed the teleconference hearing. He also stated that his client cannot remember evidence pertaining to the allegations with respect to race, place of origin and ethnic origin, and “I leave the decision in this respect to the discretion of the presided member in this case.”

7The applicant’s representative’s correspondence above is unclear in that it does not appear that he is asking for a reconsideration of my decision to dismiss the allegations with respect to race, place of origin and ethnic origin. If the applicant wishes the Tribunal to reconsider that decision, she must file a Request for Reconsideration on the appropriate Tribunal Form within 30 days of today’s date.

8In the meantime, the Tribunal shall schedule a one-day hearing for the remaining allegations: discrimination on the basis of disability and creed.

9I am not seized of this matter.