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
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Banigan v. Sheridan College Institute of Technology
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Richard Banigan, Applicant
Self-represented
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 own initiative directed that Tribunal Files 2012-11257-I and 2012-11309-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 on Order that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant. On September 10, 2012, the Tribunal directed 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 its 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 conclusion of the hearing, 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 as an in-person hearing. 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.
9In an Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 1816, I determined that because I had already dismissed these Applications because of the applicant’s non-attendance, the only appropriate way to deal with the applicant’s request to re-schedule was by way of a Request for Reconsideration (Form 20). Accordingly, I directed that the applicant deliver and file a Request for Reconsideration and afforded the respondents an opportunity to respond.
10The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration on September 25, 2012. The applicant states that he attempted to attend on the conference call but was unable to do so. The applicant states that he remained on the call for almost three hours but was never able to connect to the conference call. The applicant states that he was required to stay on the call for the entire time but does not explain why that was the case rather than contacting the Tribunal and advising that he was having trouble making the call. The applicant requests that the hearing now be re-scheduled as an in-person hearing. The applicant states that the request for an in-person hearing is appropriate because the telephone conference system obviously does not work for him. Alternatively the applicant states that he could provide his written submissions on the points in issue in this case.
11The respondent has responded to the Request. It does not consent to the reconsideration and asks the Tribunal to take note of a number of factors in considering the applicant’s Request:
a. That while the applicant claims to have been on hold for three hours listening to elevator music, having attempted to connect to the conference twice, the respondents were able to join, retire and rejoin the conference without difficulty;
b. That the Tribunal’s phone number was listed on Tribunal correspondence in relation to the telephone hearing and that the applicant did not make any effort to contact the Tribunal when he first encountered difficulty in connecting;
c. That the has been persistent in his efforts to have this matter dealt with at an in-person hearing rather than teleconference and has repeated this position in his Request for Reconsideration;
12Having made these points the respondent made no further submissions on whether the applicant’s submissions justify a re-hearing of the case. The respondent did submit that if in the Tribunal’s view fairness requires that the applicant be provided with an opportunity to make submissions in this case that it would consent to the applicant’s proposal that he make the submissions in writing.
13Any party may file a Request for Reconsideration of a final Decision of