Misih v. Cadillac Fairview Corporation, 2012 HRTO 1530

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Shady Abdul Misih Applicant

-and-

Cadillac Fairview Corporation and Paul Pannozzo Respondents

Shady Abdul Misih Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police, 33 Division Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: August 7, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1530 Indexed as: Misih v. Cadillac Fairview Corporation

APPEARANCES:

Shady Abdul Misih, Applicant ) No One Appearing Cadillac Fairview Corporation and Paul Pannozzo, Respondents ) Trevor Lawson, Counsel Toronto Police, 33 Division, Respondent ) Glen K. L. Chu, Counsel

1These are two Applications filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code").

2Although one Application names Cadillac Fairview Corporation and one of its employees, Paul Pannozzo, as respondents and the other the Toronto Police, 33 Division, the narrative portions of both Applications are identical. The Applications allege discrimination in receipt of goods, services and facilities on the basis of age, ethnic origin, family status, marital status, race and gender and concern interaction between the parties at a shopping mall on March 23, 2012.

3In a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) dated April 24, 2012, the Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that a teleconference summary hearing would be held to hear the parties' submissions on the issue of whether all or part of the Applications should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

4A summary hearing teleconference was scheduled for August 3, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. in accordance with the April 24, 2012 CAD, by way of a Notice of Summary Hearing, dated May 16, 2012. The Notice was sent to the applicant at the address provided by him in his Application and was not returned as undeliverable.

5On the scheduled date at the scheduled time, the respondents were present and represented by counsel. The applicant was not. After allowing the applicant an additional 15 minutes to join the conference call, the Tribunal convened the hearing.

6There is no indication that the applicant did not receive notice of the hearing. I am satisfied that the applicant received timely and proper notice of the hearing. I canvassed with both counsel present on behalf of the respondents as to whether the applicant had contacted them. He had not and there is no indication that he has been in touch with the Tribunal to request an adjournment.

7In the absence of the applicant and in the absence of any explanation for his failure to attend, I dismissed the Applications as abandoned during the hearing and indicated to the parties present that a written Decision would follow.

8For the reasons outlined above, the Applications are dismissed.