Rivers v. Vale Limited, 2012 HRTO 2188

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Regan Rivers

Applicant

-and-

Vale Limited and Dan Pelland

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: November 22, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2188

Indexed as: Rivers v. Vale Limited

1On May 27, 2011, the applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

2At the same time that they filed an “initial” Response to the Application, the respondents filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings, seeking particulars of the applicant’s allegations against them. In their Request, the respondents took the position that they required particulars of the applicant’s allegations in order to know the case they had to meet and to respond to the allegations against them. The applicant did not file a response to the respondents’ request for particulars.

3In an August 24, 2012 Interim Decision in this matter, 2012 HRTO 1623, the Tribunal found that it was difficult to discern what particular circumstances formed the basis of the applicant’s allegations.

Specifically, the applicant does not set out the facts that form the substance of his allegations including the circumstances of what happened, where and when it happened and the names of the persons or organizations alleged to have violated his rights under the Code (or have been involved in the particular incidents). Further, the applicant has checked off boxes in the Form 1-A but does not include a description of how, when and by whom he was discriminated against in the boxes selected in the attached narrative.

4In its August 24, 2012 Interim Decision, and pursuant to Rule 6.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particulars of his allegations to the respondents by September 10, 2012.

5The applicant did not comply with the Tribunal’s August 24, 2012 Order.

6Accordingly, on September 13, 2012, the respondents filed a Request that the Application be dismissed as a result of the applicant’s failure to comply with the Tribunal’s August 24, 2012 Order. The applicant has not responded to the respondents’ Request that his Application be dismissed and the time for doing so elapsed on September 27, 2012.

7It is now more than two months past the applicant’s deadline for complying with the Tribunal’s August 2012 Order and the applicant has not provided the respondents or the Tribunal with the particulars that he was ordered to provide; or otherwise communciated with the Tribunal. Nor has the applicant responded to the respondent’s Request that his Application be dismissed on account of his failure to comply with the Tribunal’s August 2012 Order.

8In the circumstances, it appears that the applicant has abandoned the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.