Kearney v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2013 HRTO 33

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Kearney

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Catholic District School Board and Frank Ferrante

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: January 8, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 33

Indexed as: Kearney v. Toronto Catholic District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Toronto Catholic District School Board and Frank Ferrante, Respondents

Caitlin Kavanagh, Representative

Introduction

1This matter was scheduled to proceed to a hearing on January 18, 2013. A Case Assessment Direction, dated December 17, 2012, (the “CAD”) alerted the applicant to the fact that he had failed to comply with his obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice. These Rules require each party to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a witness list, witness statements, and copies of documents the party intends to rely upon no later than 45 days prior to the hearing.

2These obligations were originally set out in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing that went to the parties on June 28, 2012. The Notice directed the parties to comply with their disclosure obligations by December 4, 2012. This was not done by the applicant.

3The CAD directed the applicant to comply with these requirements by 7 days from the date of the CAD (i.e., December 24, 2012). The applicant was specifically advised that if he did not comply with this direction, his Application may be dismissed as abandoned. The applicant did not comply with his obligations, nor did he contact the Tribunal to request an extension. Indeed, as of the date of this Decision, the applicant has not provided any material for the upcoming hearing.

DECISION

4In C.D. v. Wal-Mart Canada, 2010 HRTO 426, the Tribunal explained, at para. 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.

5The applicant was directed in two separate documents from the Tribunal to comply with the requirements under Rules 16 and 17. The CAD advised the applicant that if he did not comply within seven (7) days of the CAD, his Application may be dismissed as abandoned. This deadline has passed.

6In light of the applicant’s persistent failure to respond to direction from the Tribunal, I find that he has abandoned his Application. Accordingly, his Application is dismissed and the January 18, 2013 hearing date cancelled.