Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Rick Burns
Applicant
-and-
Thunder Bay Police Service and Robert Herman
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Indexed as: Burns v. Thunder Bay Police Service
APPEARANCES
Rick Burns, Applicant
No one appearing
Thunder Bay Police Services and Robert Herman, Respondents
R. Edwards, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 45.9(3) of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging contravention of a settlement.
2On March 27, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) in this matter, directing that a Summary Hearing be scheduled and directing that:
…the applicant will proceed first and shall make submissions about why the Application should not be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, including submissions on how each of his allegations relate to a contravention of a provision of the February 1, 2011 settlement.
3On April 10, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties, confirming that the hearing would take place by telephone on June 14, 2012, commencing at 1:30 p.m. and providing the call-in information necessary for the parties to participate in the call. The Notice was delivered to the applicant at the last address provided by him and was not returned as undeliverable. Among other things, with regard to the consequences of failing to attend the hearing after receiving proper notice, the Notice advised that the Tribunal may “dismiss the Application as abandoned if the applicant fails to attend”.
4On April 5, 2012, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal, indicating that a withdrawal of the Application may be forthcoming.
5On May 15, 2012, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant at the email address provided by him, confirming that in the absence of a withdrawal, the Summary Hearing scheduled for June 14, 2012 would proceed.
6A series of emails were exchanged with the applicant regarding his concerns with issues of legal representation. The Tribunal advised the applicant that it is an adjudicative body and that it has no role with respect to parties’ relationship with counsel, nor does it assist parties to secure representation.
7None of the above-noted emails from the Tribunal have been returned as undeliverable.
8I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing. Further, I note that the Tribunal has not received any request for an adjournment of the hearing date.
9The applicant was not in attendance at the commencement of the scheduled hearing, nor was there anyone appearing on his behalf. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 2:00 p.m. before proceeding.
10At 2:00 p.m. the applicant was not in attendance nor was anyone appearing on his behalf. The applicant had not communicated with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend, nor had anyone communicated with the Tribunal on his behalf to explain the failure to attend.
11In the circumstances, the Application was dismissed on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 18^th^ day of June, 2012
Signed by
Maureen Doyle
Vice-chair