Ivan Kotskulych v. Saint Paul University, 2012 HRTO 1677

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Ivan Kotskulych Applicant

-and-

Saint Paul University Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: September 5, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1677 Indexed as: Kotskutych v. Saint Paul University

APPEARANCES

Ivan Kotskulych, Applicant No one appearing

Saint Paul University, Respondent Charles Gibson, Counsel

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 with respect to services because of place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin and creed.

2The applicant alleges that he experienced discrimination when he applied for and was refused admission to the Master in Pastoral Theology program at Saint Paul’s University for the fall 2009 session. The respondent denies the allegations.

3On March 4, 2011, the Tribunal dismissed the Application as abandoned after the applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and then failed to respond to correspondence from the Tribunal dated February 3, 2011 (2011 HRTO 459). That Decision was reconsidered by the Tribunal on March 30, 2011 (2011 HRTO 626) because the applicant had communicated with the Tribunal on January 13, 2011 and his email was inadvertently not placed in the file.

4A Notice of Confirmation of Hearing dated February 3, 2012 was sent to the parties advising that the Application had been scheduled for hearing on August 31, 2012 commencing at 9:30 a.m. at the hearing venue in Ottawa, Ontario.

5The applicant emailed the Tribunal on February 22, 2012 advising that he was no longer a resident in Ottawa and requested a change in both the venue (to Toronto) and the date of the hearing. The respondent opposed the change in venue but consented to the change in hearing date. By email dated March 5, 2012, the Registrar declined to change the hearing venue but granted the applicant’s request to change the hearing date. The applicant was directed to canvass with the respondent five mutually agreeable dates to reschedule the hearing and provide them to the Tribunal by March 12, 2012. On March 8, 2012, counsel for the respondent advised the Tribunal of his availability for five dates in September, 2012. On March 11, 2012, the applicant emailed the Tribunal indicating that he was prepared to proceed on the original hearing, August 31, 2012. As a result, a Notice of Rescheduled Hearing dated March 14, 2012 was sent to the parties containing the same information as the original Notice about the venue and start time of the hearing.

6The Notice included information about the steps to be taken in advance of the hearing. Disclosure of arguably relevant documents was due by April 4, 2012 and disclosure and filing of documents to be relied upon, witness lists, and a summary of each witness’ evidence were due by July 17, 2012.

7The respondent complied with the deadlines set out in the Notice. The applicant did not comply. However, I note that given that the allegations relate to one interaction with the respondent, it is unlikely that the applicant would rely on documents or witnesses other than those produced by the respondent.

8The respondent attended the hearing on time. The applicant was not in attendance at 9:30 a.m. I stood the hearing down for thirty minutes. At 10:00 a.m. when the hearing resumed the applicant was not in attendance and had not contacted the Tribunal to explain his failure to attend.

9Considering all of the circumstances, I find that the applicant has abandoned the Application and is therefore dismissed.