Stephen Miller v. City of Toronto, 2013 HRTO 476

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stephen Miller

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto

Respondent

-and-

Toronto Civic Employees’ Union, Local 416 (CUPE)

Intervenor

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: March 21, 2012

Citation: 2013 HRTO 476

Indexed as: Miller v. Toronto (City)

APPEARANCES

Stephen Miller, Applicant

No one appearing

City of Toronto, Respondent

Ian Solomon, Counsel

Toronto Civic Employees’ Union, Local 416 (CUPE), Intervenor

Devon Paul, Counsel

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 record of offences. The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing by telephone for March 13, 2013 commencing at 9:30 a.m. to address whether another proceeding dealt with the substance of the application, pursuant to section 45.1 or whether the Application amounted to an abuse of process.

2The applicant did not attend the hearing. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. until proceeding with the hearing. The respondent submitted that the Tribunal should dismiss the Application as abandoned. The respondent submitted that the Tribunal sent the Notice of Confirmation of Rescheduled Hearing (the “Notice”) to the address the applicant provided. The respondent noted that the Notice set out potential consequences of failing to attend the hearing, which included that the Tribunal may “dismiss the Application as abandoned if the applicant fails to attend”. Consequently, the respondent submitted that the Tribunal should dismiss the Application. The respondent also summarized its position regarding the interpretation of section 45.1 and abuse of process, but in light of my decision it is unnecessary to record those submissions.

3I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing. The Tribunal sent the Notice to the address the applicant has used in correspondence with the Tribunal and the document was not returned to the Tribunal. As noted, the applicant knew or ought to have known that the Application could be dismissed if he failed to attend the preliminary hearing.

4In view of the applicant’s non-attendance, the Application is hereby dismissed as abandoned.