Amin v. Blaisdale Montessori School, 2013 HRTO 252

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Mahamud Amin

Applicant

-and-

Blaisdale Montessori School and Heather Wilson

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: February 12, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 252

Indexed as: Amin v. Blaisdale Montessori School

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of creed.

2By Notice of Confirmation of Hearing dated June 25, 2012, the matter was set down for hearing on February 14 and 15, 2013. The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing directed the parties to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure by exchanging with one another and filing with the Tribunal the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing, a list of their witnesses and a summary of their witnesses’ anticipated evidence by no later than December 31, 2012.

3The respondents provided their hearing documents on December 10, 2012. The applicant failed to provide his hearing documents by December 31, 2012.

4In a January 14, 2013 Case Assessment Direction (the “CAD”), the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide his required hearing materials by January 24, 2013. The CAD was sent to the applicant electronically.

5On January 17, 2013, the applicant asked for an adjournment of the hearing. The applicant stated he was traveling with his mother from the last week in January until the first week in March 2013 and could not attend the hearing.

6By Interim Decision dated January 22, 2013, 2013 HRTO 108, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s adjournment request. The Tribunal confirmed the hearing would proceed on February 14, 2013. The Tribunal repeated its direction to the applicant that he file his pre-hearing documents. The Interim Decision was sent to the applicant by regular mail and electronically. The applicant did not file his pre-hearing documents as required and did not contact the Tribunal to explain why.

7On January 29, 2013, the respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) asking the Tribunal to dismiss the Application if the pre-hearing documents were not filed by February 8, 2013. The respondents delivered the RFOP to the applicant electronically.

8The applicant did not file the materials as required by January 24, 2013, and did not contact the Tribunal to advise the reason for his non-compliance with the direction set out in the CAD and the Interim Decision. He did not respond to the RFOP. There has been no communication from the applicant since his adjournment request on January 17, 2013. He may well be travelling with his mother, as he advised in that request. In the circumstances, it appears that the applicant does not intend to proceed with the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

ORDER

9The Application is dismissed as abandoned and the hearing dates of February 14 and 15, 2013 are cancelled.