Trevors v. Homestead Land Holdings Limited, 2013 HRTO 268

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Garry Trevors

Applicant

-and-

Homestead Land Holdings Limited, Martin Woock, Jim Minnes, Jeff Rychel and John Papini

Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

Garry Trevors

Applicant

-and-

Homestead Land Holdings Limited, Martin Woock, Jim Minnes, Jeff Rychel and John Papini

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: February 14, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 268

Indexed as: Trevors v. Homestead Land Holdings Limited

1These are two Applications filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on November 17, 2011 (2011-10287-I) and April 19, 2012 (2012-11366-I). By Interim Decision dated July 24, 2012, the Applications were consolidated (2012 HRTO 1447). The Applications are scheduled to proceed to a hearing on February 25, 2013.

2On January 30, 2013, I issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) to alert the applicant to the fact that he had failed to comply with the obligations under Rules 16 and 17 to deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal a witness list, witness statements, and copies of documents he intended to rely upon no later than 45 days prior to the hearing. The CAD directed the applicant to comply with these requirements within seven days of the date of the CAD and alerted the applicant to the fact that if he failed to do so, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

3The CAD was sent to the applicant’s representative by mail and facsimile at the address and facsimile number of the representative as set out in the Applications. The package sent by facsimile indicates that it was delivered; the package sent by regular mail has not been returned.

4These obligations were originally set out in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing that was sent to the parties on August 2, 2012. The Notice also indicated that the Tribunal would send information to a party at the address provided by them and if a party’s contact information changes, it must advise the Tribunal immediately. The Notice was sent to the applicant’s representative at the address provided in the Applications and was not returned to the Tribunal.

5On February 8, 2013, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal seeking direction as to whether or not the matter will be proceeding on February 25, 2013. The letter indicates on its face that it is copied to the applicant’s representative.

6The Tribunal’s file does not include any record of contact with the applicant’s representative on either file since the Notice of Hearing was issued.

7Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the applicant has abandoned the Application. The Application is therefore dismissed and the hearing date of February 25, 2013 is cancelled.