HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Richard Clarke

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Robert Taite

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: April 24, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 831

Indexed as: Clarke v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

APPEARANCES

) Richard Clarke, Applicant ) No one appearing ) ) Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario ) as represented by the Minister of Community ) Christina Donszelmann, Counsel Safety and Correctional Services, Respondent ) Robert Taite, Respondent ) Denyse Boulet, Counsel )

1This is an Application under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (‘the Code”), in which the applicant alleges that the respondents infringed his rights under the Code while he was being held in custody at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, a provincial correctional facility operated by the respondent Ministry.

2Pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction dated December 28, 2011, the Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing be convened pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to determine whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that the Application would succeed. In its Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal directed that the summary hearing would proceed by way of teleconference and advised the parties that a Notice of Summary Hearing would be sent to them by the Registrar’s office.

3The Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the parties on January 9, 2012, advising that the summary hearing would commence at 9:30 a.m. on April 24, 2012. The Notice of Summary Hearing also advised the parties how to connect to the teleconference. The Notice of Summary Hearing was mailed to the applicant at the address provided by him to the Tribunal, as well as to his legal counsel, and was not returned as undeliverable.

4The Summary Hearing was convened by teleconference on April 24, 2012, at the scheduled time. The respondents attended the summary hearing and were represented by counsel. The applicant did not attend the hearing.

5I advised those present on the call that the hearing would commence at 10:00 a.m. or whenever the applicant attended on the call, whichever occurred first.

6During the summary hearing, the respondent Ministry indicated that the applicant was currently being held in custody at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre. Accordingly, when the applicant failed to appear at the summary hearing, I asked the respondent Ministry whether the applicant had asked that arrangements be made to allow him to participate in the summary hearing. After making inquiries of one of the Deputy Superintendents at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, the respondent Ministry confirmed that the applicant had not made such a request. The respondent Ministry also confirmed that the applicant would have been given access to a telephone for the purpose of attending the summary hearing if he had requested that arrangements be made to allow him to attend the summary hearing. Upon receiving this information at approximately 10:45 a.m., I proceeded with the summary hearing. The applicant was still not present.

7I was satisfied at the hearing that the applicant had received timely and proper notice of the summary hearing. The Tribunal was not aware of any indication that the applicant would not be attending the hearing. In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for his failure to attend the hearing, I dismissed the Application as abandoned at the hearing.

ORDER

8The Application is dismissed.