Ramkissoon v. Conspec Controls Ltd., 2012 HRTO 139

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Errol Jacob Ramkissoon Applicant

• and -

Conspec Controls Ltd. Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: January 18, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 139 Indexed as: Ramkissoon v. Conspec Controls Ltd.

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. This Decision deals with the respondent’s request for early dismissal (“Request”) on the basis that the applicant has failed to comply with Tribunal Directions.

Background

2In their Response to the Application the respondent had stated that the Application should be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release. The respondent provided a copy of the Release which amongst other things releases the respondent from any claims under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

3The applicant although directed to do so by letter from the Tribunal dated October 28, 2011 did not respond to the respondent’s request for early dismissal of the Application. In a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) dated November 22, 2011 the applicant was directed to deliver his submissions to the respondent and the Tribunal within 10 days failing which the Application may be dismissed.

4On November 22, 2011 the applicant wrote to the Tribunal with a brief response. This communication was not delivered to the respondent by the Applicant. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on November 23, 2011 to advise him that it appeared that he had not delivered his submission to the respondent and directed that he do so as required by Rules 1.12 and 1.21 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. There is no indication that the applicant responded to this correspondence from the Tribunal or complied with its Direction to deliver his submissions to the respondent.

5On December 16, 2011 the Tribunal received correspondence from the respondent indicating that the applicant had not complied with the Tribunal’s Directions to deliver his submissions – in particular the CAD noted above which required that the applicant deliver and file his submissions within 10 days failing which the Application might be dismissed. The respondent sought the dismissal of the Application on the basis that the applicant had failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Directions. The respondent did not copy the applicant on this correspondence.

6On January 3, 2012 counsel for the respondent wrote to the Tribunal again requesting that the Application be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had failed failure to comply with the Tribunal’s Directions. On January 6, 2012 the respondent wrote to the applicant, with a copy to the Tribunal, providing him with a copy of their December 16, 2011 and January 3, 2012 correspondence and advised that if the applicant did not respond within 10 calendar days of the date of their letter the respondent would proceed with a motion to dismiss the Application.

Decision

7The Application is dismissed. The applicant has failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Directions to deliver his submissions to the respondent failing which the applicant was advised that the Application may be dismissed as abandoned. The applicant did file a brief submission to the Tribunal but despite being advised by the Tribunal of the requirement that he deliver his submissions to the respondent the applicant has failed to do so since November 23, 2011.

8The applicant has also been reminded on two occasions of the fact that the respondents have not yet received his submissions, and for that reason are taking the position that the Application should be dismissed.

9Despite these multiple reminders the applicant has taken no steps to participate further in the process. In these circumstances I find that the applicant has abandoned this Application and it should be dismissed.