HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
George Ssemukuutu Applicant
-and-
Trans-Globe Property Management Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist
Indexed as: Ssemukuutu v. Trans-Globe Property Management
APPEARANCES
George Ssemukuutu, Applicant ) Self-represented
Trans-Globe Property Management, ) Kristen Ley, Counsel
Respondent )
1This Application was filed pursuant to section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The Application alleges discrimination in accommodation. The Application alleges that the applicant was evicted by the respondent because of his race and the fact that he was in receipt of public assistance.
2After receiving the Application the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") determining that a summary hearing would be held by teleconference to consider the Application. A hearing was scheduled for November 15, 2011. The applicant failed to appear at this hearing.
3The Tribunal will usually declare an Application abandoned when an applicant fails to appear at a scheduled hearing. However, in this case the Tribunal had concerns about communications between the Tribunal and applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal issued a further CAD on November 16, 2011. This CAD directed the applicant to clarify whether he wished to pursue his Application and the reasons for why he failed to appear for his hearing and failed to apprise the Tribunal of changes to his contact information. The applicant and the respondent have both provided written submissions in response to this CAD.
BACKGROUND
4The applicant filed his Application on April 6, 2011. On his Application the applicant provides his mailing and email addresses. In response to the question on the Application which asks "What is the best way to send information to you?" the applicant indicates by mail and email. The applicant indicates in an email to the Tribunal dated May 3, 2011 that he has been issued a Notice to Vacate from the address provided on his Application by May 4, 2011.
5On May 16, 2011 the Tribunal issued a CAD determining that the most appropriate procedure, given the issues raised in the Application, would be to hold a summary hearing by teleconference to consider the Application. The issue in a summary hearing is whether an application has a reasonable prospect of success. The CAD also indicates that the Tribunal could dismiss the Application pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code on the basis that the Landlord and Tenant Board ("LTB") had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.
6A copy of this CAD was mailed to the applicant at the address he provided on his Application.
7On October 11, 2011 the Tribunal sent a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties to inform them that the summary hearing was scheduled for November 15, 2011. This notice was mailed to the applicant at the address he provided on his Application. The applicant failed to appear for the hearing.
8Prior to the applicant's response to the November 16, 2011 CAD, there was no indication from the Tribunal's files that the applicant had been in contact with the Tribunal since May 3, 2011. The applicant did write on a fax form submitted along with his Application that he would like the Tribunal to acknowledge receipt of his Application by email as he is being evicted on April 12, 2011 from the rental unit he identified on his Application as his mailing address.
SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE NOVEMBER 16, 2011 CASE ASSESSMENT DIRECTION
9The applicant submits that he does wish to proceed with his Application. He submits that he did not receive notice of his hearing. He acknowledges that his mailing address changed shortly after he filed his Application as a result of his eviction and that he did not apprise the Tribunal of this change. He submits this was because he was going through difficult circumstances including living in a temporary shelter. The applicant submits that he eventually was able, with the assistance of his family, to go abroad in August 2011 to pursue employment. The applicant requests that the Tribunal reschedule his hearing.
10The respondent submits that the applicant is responsible for not receiving notice of his hearing. The respondent submits that by indicating on his Application that the best way to contact him was by both mail and email he was indicating that either method of service would be appropriate. The respondent submits the applicant ought to have advised the Tribunal and the respondent of any change to his contact information as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and if he had done so he would have received notice of his hearing. The respondent submits that, under the circumstances requesting a further hearing is an abuse of the Tribunal's process and rules.
11The respondent further submits that there is enough information before the Tribunal to dismiss the Application on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed.
DECISION
12The Tribunal will schedule another summary hearing to hear submissions from the parties on whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success and whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the [Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/