Richard Banigan v. Sheridan College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, 2012 HRTO 1816

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Richard Banigan Applicant

-and-

Sheridan College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: September 24, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1816 Indexed as: Banigan v. Sheridan College Institute of Technology and advanced Learning

APPEARANCES

Richard Banigan, Applicant No one appearing

Sheridan College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, Respondent Brenda Bowlby, Counsel

Introduction

1These are three Applications 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 employment because of age and association with a person identified by a Code ground.

2In Case Assessment Direction dated May 15, 2012 the Tribunal on its initiative directed that Tribunal Files 2012-11209-I; 2012-11257-I be consolidated and that a telephone hearing be held to determine whether the Applications should be dismissed in whole or in part because:

a. another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application; or

b. it would be an abuse of process for the Applications to proceed.

3In a further Case Direction dated July 9, 2012 the Tribunal directed that a third Application filed by the applicant, Tribunal File 2012-11689-I also be added as it appeared that it raised similar issues as those identified in the previous two Applications that have been dealt with in prior proceedings before the Tribunal.

4A Notice confirming the hearing date by telephone conference call was sent to the applicant on August 28, 2012 at the address he has provided to the Tribunal and was not returned. I am satisfied that the applicant has had timely notice of this hearing.

5The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (Request) on September 5, 2012, seeking an Order that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant. The Tribunal directed on September 10, 2012 that the respondent’s Request would also be considered at the hearing on September 21, 2012.

6At the time and place set for the hearing the respondent was in attendance but the applicant was not. In accordance with the usual practice of the Tribunal the hearing was adjourned until 10:00 a.m. to allow the applicant further time to attend.

7At 10:00 a.m. the applicant was not in attendance and the hearing proceeded in his absence. I dismissed these Applications as abandoned at the hearing and then heard the respondent’s submissions on their Request that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant. I reserved on the question of whether or not the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.

8Subsequent to the hearing concluding, the applicant communicated with the Tribunal by email indicating that he was unable to connect to the telephone conference call. The applicant states that he attempted to connect to the call for almost three hours and was unable to communicate with the Tribunal during this entire time. The applicant asks that the Application be re-scheduled as soon as possible. Alternatively the applicant states that he could provide a written version of the remarks he was prepared to make at the hearing. The email was copied to the respondent.

9As I have dismissed these Applications, the only appropriate way to deal with the applicant’s request to re-schedule is by way of a Request for Reconsideration (Form 20). Accordingly I make the following Directions:

a. The applicant will deliver and file within 39 days of the date of this Decision a Request for Reconsideration providing his submissions on his reasons for not attending the hearing at its scheduled time;

b. The respondent may respond to the Request within 14 days of receipt of the applicant’s Request. In their response the respondent is requested to comment on the applicant’s proposal that he be given leave to provide his written submissions to the Tribunal in lieu of an oral hearing

c. The Tribunal may make its decision based on the written submissions of the parties.