HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Chadi Abdullah

Applicant

-and-

City of Windsor

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: September 27, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1631

Indexed as: Abdullah v. Windsor (City)

APPEARANCES

)

Chadi Abdullah, Applicant ) No one appearing

)

)

City of Windsor, Respondent ) Patrick Brode, Counsel

[1] This 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 respondent infringed his rights under the Code.

[2] Pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction dated June 24, 2013, 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.

[3] The Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the parties on July 17, 2013, advising that the summary hearing would commence at 1:30 p.m. on September 26, 2013. 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 and was not returned as undeliverable.

[4] The Summary Hearing was convened by teleconference on September 26, 2013, at the scheduled time. The respondent attended the summary hearing and was represented by counsel. The applicant did not attend the hearing.

[5] I advised those present on the call that the hearing would commence at 2:00 p.m. or when the applicant attended on the call, whichever occurred first.

[6] By 2:00 p.m., the applicant had still not attended on the call.

[7] I was satisfied at the hearing that the applicant had received timely and proper notice of the summary hearing. In addition to the fact that the Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the applicant at the address provided by him and not returned, during the summary hearing, counsel for the respondent advised that the applicant emailed him on September 18, 2013, indicating that he was aware of the September 26, 2013 summary hearing and seeking certain information relevant to the Application.

[8] I am not aware of the Tribunal having received any indication that the applicant would not be attending the summary hearing. Nor did the applicant indicate to the respondent that he was unable to attend the summary hearing.

[9] 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

[10] The Application is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 27^th^ day of September, 2013.

“signed by”

Sheri D. Price

Vice-chair