Antonio Charles v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Fred Duykers, 2012 HRTO 564

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Antonio Charles

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Fred Duykers

Respondent

DecisION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: March 19, 2012

Indexed as: 2012 HRTO 564

1This is an Application filed pursuant to section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2In a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) dated March 5, 2012 the applicant was alerted to the fact that he had failed to comply with his obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a witness list, witness statements, and copies of documents that he intended to rely on at the hearing.

3The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing sent to the parties on or about November 14, 2011 summarized their obligations as follows:

Unless otherwise directed by the HRTO, not later than February 27, 2012 you must deliver to every other party and file with the HRTO:

• a list of all documents you intends to rely on at the hearing;

• a copy of each document on that list for the HRTO;

• a copy of every document on that list for each party or confirmation every document has already been provided to the other parties;

• a witness list that includes the name of every witness, including expert witnesses, you intend to present to the HRTO;

• a statement summarizing the expected evidence of each witness;

• where you intend to rely on the evidence of a proposed expert witness, a copy of the expert’s written report or a full summary of the expert’s proposed evidence and the expert’s curriculum vitae;

• the Statement of Delivery of the Rule 16.2 list and documents on the other parties.

4In the CAD the applicant was directed to immediately file the materials required under Rules 16 and 17, and was further advised that if he did not do so within 7 days of the date of the CAD, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

5As of this writing the applicant has still not complied with his obligations under the Rules and has not complied with the Directions in the CAD of March 5, 2012. He has not communicated with the Tribunal in any manner since the Application was filed in February 2011. In all of the circumstances it appears that the applicant has abandoned the Application and accordingly it should be dismissed.