Kevin Edward Scott v. Durose Manufacturing Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1822

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kevin Edward Scott

Applicant

-and-

Durose Manufacturing Ltd.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel Randazzo

Date: October 29, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1822

Indexed as: Scott v. Durose Manufacturing Ltd.

1This is an Application dated November 15, 2012 and filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and record of offences.

2The hearing in this matter is scheduled for November 4, 2013 in Toronto, Ontario.

3On October 8, 2013, I issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) to the parties indicating that none of the parties had fully complied with their pre-hearing obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

4Pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, each party is required to deliver to the other parties and file with the Tribunal the following material not less than 45 days prior to the first scheduled hearing day:

a. A list of all documents upon which the party intends to rely at the hearing;

b. A copy of each document contained on the list; and

c. A list of all witnesses the party intends to call at the hearing, including a brief statement summarizing each witness’ expected evidence.

5In the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing sent to the parties on March 18, 2013, the parties were reminded of these obligations and were to have delivered this material to the other parties and filed this material with the Tribunal by no later than September 20, 2013.

6In the CAD, I noted that the applicant had not filed with the Tribunal a list of the documents he intended to rely upon at the hearing and a copy of any such documents.

7In the CAD, I noted, for example, that the applicant may seek to rely on documents such as medical evidence and/or doctor’s notes relating to the applicant’s alleged injury; correspondence, emails, and phone records; and any documents relating to the applicant’s efforts to obtain alternate employment, including job search records, T-4 slips, income tax returns and notices of assessment.

8I further noted in the CAD that the applicant also had not filed a list of the witnesses he intended to call at the hearing or statements summarizing their expected evidence. I indicated that if the applicant intended to testify on his own behalf at the hearing and only intended to give evidence in accordance with what is set out in his Application, then he simply needed to confirm this with the respondent and the Tribunal. If the applicant intended to give evidence regarding any other matter not set out in his Application, then I indicated that he needed to provide a summary of what any such further evidence would be.

9Finally, I indicated that, if the applicant intended to call any other witness(es) to testify at the hearing, then he needed to state this and provide a summary of their expected evidence.

10With regard to the respondent, I noted in the CAD that the documents the respondent intended to rely upon at the hearing had not been disclosed to the applicant and filed with the Tribunal and that the respondent had not provided a list of the witnesses it intended to call and had not provided a description of the expected evidence of those witnesses.

11As a result, I directed in the CAD that, no later than October 21, 2013, the parties were to deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal the following material:

a. A list of all witnesses, including themselves, that they intend to call to give evidence at the hearing;

b. A statement of each witness’ expected evidence. Each statement should set out the witness’ evidence on all relevant areas to which it is proposed that they testify. For the applicant and the owner of the respondent business, if they are simply relying upon the information provided in the Application and Response, this can simply be confirmed. If there are any additional areas about which they propose to give evidence, then this needs to be stated; and

c. A list of all documents or materials upon which they intend to rely at the hearing, together with a copy of these documents and materials.

12I further indicated in the CAD that, if the applicant failed to serve and file these materials within the time period indicated, this Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

13By October 21, 2013 the respondent complied with the CAD by serving and filing its list of witnesses, a statement of the witnesses’ expected evidence and a list of and copy of all documents and material upon with the respondent intended to rely at the hearing.

14However, the applicant, even to this date, has not made any effort to comply with the direction in the CAD. This Tribunal has no indication that he has served and filed the documents upon which he intends to rely at the hearing, he has not provided a list of the witnesses who he intends to call or a summary of their expected evidence, nor has he even confirmed that he himself will appear as a witness to testify on his own behalf.

15An Application to this Tribunal commences a legal proceeding, and it is the applicant’s responsibility to actively engage in the legal process and to fulfil his obligations under the Rules. While I appreciate that the applicant is self-represented, the Notice of Hearing described what her his pre-hearing obligations were and the dates by which they were to be fulfilled. Lest there be any doubt about the applicant’s understanding of his obligations, I issued a CAD describing these obligations and providing examples and guidance as to what he needed to do. And yet the applicant still has made no effort to comply.

16In all of these circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to dismiss this Application as abandoned. The hearing scheduled for November 4, 2013 is hereby cancelled.