Konstantinos Gidopoulos v. Weston Bakeries (Distribution Centre) and Ralph Robinson, 2012 HRTO 1420

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Konstantinos Gidopoulos Applicant

-and-

Weston Bakeries (Distribution Centre) and Ralph Robinson Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: July 20, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1420 Indexed as: Gidopoulos v. Weston Bakeries (Distribution Centre)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Weston Bakeries (Distribution Centre) and Ralph Robinson, Respondents Robert Weir, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application was filed on October 19, 2010, 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 because of ethnic origin, disability, and association as well as reprisal. The Application essentially describes the termination of the applicant's employment.

CASE HISTORY

2Following a preliminary hearing by way of teleconference, I dismissed the allegation of discrimination because of ethnic origin in an interim decision, 2011 HRTO 1925, and directed that a preliminary hearing be held in person to determine whether there was no reasonable prospect of the success of the remaining grounds. That preliminary hearing was held on February 8, 2012, and was followed by an interim decision, 2012 HRTO 437, in which I dismissed the remaining allegations indicated in the Application with respect to the termination of the applicant's employment, including the allegation that a reason for the termination was because of disability; however, I found that the applicant had raised at the preliminary hearing allegations of discrimination because of disability during the course of his employment. I directed that the Tribunal would hear evidence and argument on those allegations without prejudice to the respondent's right to argue that the Tribunal should not consider those allegations as a result of the stage at which they were raised.

3The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings on May 23, 2012, requesting that the Tribunal dismiss the Application because the allegations raised at the preliminary hearing are out of time. The applicant did not file any submissions in response to the Request despite the requirement to do so within 14 days of its delivery to the applicant.

4In a Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") issued June 28, 2012, I made the following direction:

The applicant is directed to file a response (Form 11) to the respondents' Request. He must be sure to address in his submissions whether he should be permitted to amend his Application to include the allegations raised at the preliminary hearing: mistreatment during the course of his employment because of disability (as described in paragraphs 20-23 of the most recent interim decision, 2012 HRTO 437). The applicant must also comment on the cases attached to the Request, particularly Shakhnazarov v. George Brown College, 2011 HRTO 1917, which addresses the issue of delay in the context of considering a request by an applicant to amend an application.

If the applicant has not filed with the Tribunal and delivered to the respondents a response to their Request within 14 days of this Case Assessment Direction, then he may be considered to have abandoned the Application, and it may be dismissed.

5The applicant has not complied with my direction made June 18, 2012, nor communicated with the Tribunal, despite my warning that if he did not comply, then the Application might be dismissed.

REASONS

6I am satisfied that the applicant received both the respondents' Request of May 23, 2012, with its cover sheet explaining that the applicant had 14 days to respond, and the CAD of June 18, 2012, which directed the applicant to respond within 14 days (by July 12, 2012). The applicant has chosen not to respond.

7I therefore find that the applicant has abandoned the Application. I make this finding primarily on the basis that the applicant has not communicated with the Tribunal despite my direction that if he does not, he risks the Tribunal dismissing the Application. I also make this finding on the basis of the following contextual factors:

• The main thrust of the Application involved the applicant's allegations that his employment was terminated in violation of the Code, but those allegations have been dismissed;
• The only issue remaining is whether the respondents infringed the Code on the basis of certain incidents allegedly related to the applicant's disability while he was on modified work, but those appear to have occurred prior to one year before the applicant filed his Application;
• This remaining issue was only raised in passing by the applicant in a preliminary hearing before me, and not in the original Application; and
• The respondents have made a Request to dismiss the remaining issue on the basis of it being out of time, and the applicant has not disputed that.

ORDER

8The Application is dismissed as abandoned.