Carl Bell v. City of Toronto, 2012 HRTO 2264

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carl Bell

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto, Ralph Butera and Joe O’Neil

Respondents

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 416

Intervenor

DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: December 4, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2264

Indexed as: Bell v. Toronto (City)

APPEARANCES

Carl Bell, Applicant

No one appearing

City of Toronto, Ralph Butera and Joe O’Neil, Respondents

Heather Crisp, Counsel

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 416, Intervenor

David Steele, Counsel

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on January 18, 2012.

2On August 30, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Preliminary Hearing to the parties’ representatives confirming that hearing would take place by teleconference commencing at 1:30 p.m. on November 30, 2012. The Notice was delivered to the applicant’s representative.

3On October 10, 2012, the applicant’s representative wrote to the Tribunal, copying the applicant and the respondent, advising that he no longer represents the applicant in this matter.

4The Tribunal has received no communication from the applicant.

5The applicant was not in attendance at the commencement of the scheduled hearing, nor did anyone appear on his behalf. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 2:00 p.m. before proceeding.

6At 2:00 p.m. the applicant was not in attendance nor had the applicant communicated with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend.

7In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed on the basis that the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.