Sauve v. Iron Range Bus Lines Inc., 2013 HRTO 2026

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Dale Sauve Applicant

-and-

Iron Range Bus Lines Inc. Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kevin G. Cleghorn Date: December 6, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 2026 Indexed As: Sauve v. Iron Range Bus Lines Inc.

Reasons for Decision

1This is an Application, dated September 23, 2012, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment based upon disability.

2The respondent filed a Response (Form 2) to the Application. The applicant did not file a Reply to the Response (Form 3).

3On December 3, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing the applicant and the respondent to provide his/its witness list, witness statements, list of arguably relevant documents and copies of those documents to each other and to the Tribunal. The respondent has complied with the CAD. If the applicant had not done so by December 6, 2013 at 9:00 a.m., the CAD made it clear that the Application may be dismissed as abandoned. In C.D. v. Wal-Mart Canada Inc., 2010 HRTO 426, the Tribunal explained, at paragraph 7:

The exchange of documents (Rule 16) and witness statements (Rule 17) 45 days prior to the hearing is a critical part of the Tribunal’s process. It ensures that each party fully understands the other side’s case and enables the Tribunal to make Case Assessment Directions to structure the hearing. In appropriate cases, adoption of the witness statements may take the place of examination-in-chief of the witness. Witness statements should therefore be detailed and set out the particular evidence that the witness will give, rather than just general topics. A witness statement should be filed for each witness, including an applicant or individual respondent. Where the Application or Response itself makes clear the proposed testimony, the witness statement may simply confirm that the summary of facts in the Application or Response is complete and reflects the evidence that will be given by the applicant or individual respondent.

4The applicant has not responded to the CAD and the time for doing so has now passed.

5In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application and the hearing date of December 9, 2013 is cancelled.

6The Application is dismissed.