Bair v. The Crack Doctor Corporation, 2013 HRTO 1893

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Brett Bair Applicant

-and-

The Crack Doctor Corporation Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: November 14, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1893 Indexed as: Bair v. The Crack Doctor Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Brett Bair, Applicant Self-represented

The Crack Doctor Corporation, Respondent No one appearing

Introduction

1This is an Application 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 race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and creed.

2The respondent denies having discriminated against the applicant contrary to the Code.

3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing in this matter, advising the parties of the July 12, 2013 hearing date and reminding them of their obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. The Notice of Hearing was not returned as undeliverable.

4The dates for filing documentation required by Rules 16 and 17 passed without receipt of the required documentation at the Tribunal.

5The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) reminding the parties of their obligations under Rules 16 and 17 and, among other things, advising the applicant that if he did not file the required documentation with the Tribunal within 7 days of the CAD, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

6The CAD was sent to the same addresses as was the Notice of Hearing. It was not returned as undeliverable.

7At the expiry of the 7 day period for provision of documents in accordance with the CAD, the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC) wrote to the Tribunal, indicating that it was contacting the Tribunal with the applicant's permission, noting that he had received the CAD and advising that he was "very confused about the process and is unaware of a hearing date having been issued". The HRLSC requested an extension of the time period for production of documentation, on behalf of the applicant, and asked that the Tribunal provide a hearing date for their reference.

8The Tribunal wrote to the HRLSC, providing an extension of a further 7 days for the applicant to file the documentation required pursuant to Rules 16 and 17, but did not confirm the hearing date at that time.

9The applicant filed his documentation in accordance with the extended timeframe permitted by the Tribunal. Along with the documentation, he included a handwritten note dated June 23, 2013, in which he indicates that his "letter is in regards to [my] hearing 6/28/2013". This apparent misapprehension was not addressed by the Tribunal.

10The hearing convened on July 12, 2013, as scheduled. Neither the applicant nor the respondent was in attendance. As is the normal practice, the Tribunal waited 30 minutes, until 10 am, but the parties were still not in attendance, nor had they contacted the Tribunal to indicate why they were not in attendance.

11In view of the above-noted special circumstances which indicate some confusion with respect to the scheduled hearing date, the Tribunal issued a CAD on July 15, 2013, noting that neither party had attended the scheduled hearing and directing the parties to make submissions regarding whether the matter should be dismissed as abandoned.

12The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration, using the Tribunal's Form 20 and checking off the box which indicates "You were entitled to notice, but through no fault of your own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing". He also wrote indicating that he feels he did not receive proper notice, was confused and asking for a new date. He stated that he has "put a lot of effort into this".

13The Tribunal has received no submissions or other communication from the respondent.

14Though there had been no decision issued for the Tribunal to reconsider, the Tribunal accepts the applicant's statement in his Request for Reconsideration as his submissions on the question of whether the matter should be dismissed as abandoned due to his failure to attend at the scheduled hearing date.

15The above-noted history of correspondence from and on behalf of the applicant constitutes unusual circumstances, in which the applicant appears to have experienced serious confusion regarding the date of the hearing. He appears to have taken steps to participate in the hearing by filing the required documentation, though I also note that it is not clear that he sought to attend a hearing on "6/28/2013". I find that in the above-described unusual circumstances of this case, it would not be fair to dismiss this Application as abandoned despite the applicant's failure to attend at the hearing.

16The Registrar will schedule a new hearing date for this Application. The Notice of Hearing will be sent to the parties at any mailing address and any email address which they have provided to the Tribunal.

17The applicant is cautioned to read the Notice of Hearing, including the date scheduled for the hearing, very carefully. If he does not understand the notice, it is his responsibility to obtain clarification as soon as possible.

18I note that the respondent has not provided the disclosure required by Rules 16 and 17, did not attend at the first scheduled hearing date, and did not comply with the Tribunal's directions in the CAD to provide submissions. It is prudent at this point to remind the respondent that an Application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding. A finding that a violation of the Code has occurred may lead to various orders, including monetary compensation, other forms of restitution to the applicant, and orders to take action to promote compliance with the Code. Failure to participate in a Tribunal proceeding may lead to orders against respondent without its participation.

19I am not seized.