Akouros v. V.H. Fuels Inc., 2012 HRTO 712

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Dean Akouros Applicant

-and-

V.H. Fuels Inc. o/a Petro Canada Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: April 10, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 712 Indexed as: Akouros v. V.H. Fuels Inc.

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 November 5, 2010. The Application was scheduled to proceed to a hearing on April 19 and 20, 2012.

2On March 15, 2012, I issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) to alert the applicant and respondent to the fact that they had failed to comply with the obligations under Rules 16 and 17 to deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal a witness list, witness statements, and copies of documents each party intended to rely upon no later than 45 days prior to the hearing. The CAD directed the parties to comply with these requirements within seven days of the date of the CAD and alerted the applicant to the fact that if he failed to do so, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

3The CAD was sent to the applicant by mail and courier at the address provided by the applicant in his Application.

4These obligations were originally set out in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing that was sent to the parties on November 17, 2011. The Notice also indicated that the Tribunal would send information to a party at the address provided by them and if a party’s contact information changes, it must advise the Tribunal immediately. This warning is consistently set out in Tribunal correspondence to the parties. The Notice was sent to the applicant by mail at the address provided by the applicant in the Application and was not returned to the Tribunal.

5The respondent complied with the direction to it in the CAD on March 22, 2012.

6On March 23, 2012, the respondent emailed the Tribunal indicating that it had attempted to courier its disclosure package to the applicant. The respondent states that the tracking from the package sent to the applicant says “Recipient not located at address provided. Item being returned to sender”. The respondent also states that it did not receive a response from the applicant, presumably referring to the applicant’s requirement to file his disclosure.

7On March 26, 2012, the copy of the CAD sent to the applicant by courier by the Tribunal was returned unopened with the reason for return being “wrong address”.

8On March 27, 2012, Tribunal staff attempted to contact the applicant by telephone. The record of contact in the Tribunal’s file indicates that the applicant’s phone number is out of service.

9On March 30, 2012, the respondent sent a further email to the Tribunal. The respondent states that its disclosure package was returned to it and that the address on the package matches the address on the applicant’s Application and the Tribunal’s records. The respondent states that in all communication from the Tribunal to the applicant and respondent it has been clearly stated “If your contact information changes, you must advise the HRTO immediately.” The respondent states that it has not received any communication from the applicant that his address has changed, nor has the applicant provided the required documents. The respondent requests that the Application be dismissed.

10The Tribunal’s file reflects that the applicant attended the mediation of the Application on June 16, 2011. Since that date, the Tribunal’s file does not include any record of contact with the applicant.

DECISION

11Rule 1.13 states that a party and a party’s representative must notify the Tribunal and all parties and their representatives, in writing, of any change in their contact information, as soon as possible.

12In addition, the Tribunal in this Application has repeatedly reminded the parties of this obligation, including in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing and earlier correspondence such as the Notice of Mediation.

13Further, the Tribunal has provided additional directions to the applicant in the CAD. The applicant has not complied with those directions and the copy of the CAD sent by courier has been returned to the Tribunal.

14In this case, the applicant is not able to be contacted by the Tribunal and he has failed to provide the Tribunal with his new contact information for at least three weeks (since the CAD was returned to the Tribunal). I find that the Applicant has failed to comply with Rule 1.13 particularly when the Tribunal’s correspondence has highlighted that a party should advise of a change to contact information “immediately”.

15In light of the applicant’s failure to comply with its obligations to provide new contact information and to respond to the Tribunal’s directions as set out in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, the CAD and otherwise, I find that the applicant has abandoned his Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed and the hearing dates of April 19 and 20, 2012 are cancelled.