Nourhaghighi v. University of Toronto, 2013 HRTO 607

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Keyvan Nourhaghighi Applicant

-and-

University of Toronto/Governing Council of the University of Toronto, Ira Jacobs, Amy Tibble, Steven Moate, David R. Peterson, Steven Weisz, Joan Joley, Michael Henry Brent, David Naylor, Nick Sparkes, Jamie Dicks, Roseanne S. Lepers Sweetman, Kathy Mitchell, Doris Olivia, Ann Zavaros, Will Koppling, Josh Khan, Jill Cressy and Susan Lee Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Decision Date: April 12, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 607 Indexed as: Nourhaghighi v. University of Toronto

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on October 31, 2012.

2On December 5, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing that a summary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect for success. In addition, the CAD directed that submissions be provided to the Tribunal on whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.

3On January 15, 2013, the Tribunal scheduled the summary hearing for March 22, 2013. Through correspondence dated January 29, 2013, the applicant advised the Tribunal that he was unavailable for the scheduled date and requested that the matter be adjourned to any Tuesday or Thursday, after April 23, 2013.

4On February 1, 2013, the Tribunal corresponded with the parties and directed the parties to select two mutually agreeable dates for the purposes of rescheduling the summary hearing. The Tribunal directed the parties to provide dates on or before February 8, 2013. While the counsel for respondents provided dates to the Tribunal, the applicant did not.

5On February 8, 2013, the Tribunal indicated to the parties that the date provided by counsel for the respondents was no longer available to the Tribunal and directed that further mutually agreeable dates be provided to the Tribunal by the parties on or before February 13, 2013. While the counsel for respondents provided dates to the Tribunal, the applicant did not.

6On March 11, 2013, the Tribunal sent correspondence to the applicant asking him to confirm dates for the summary hearing from the dates that were provided by counsel for the respondents. The applicant did not respond to this correspondence.

7Finally, the Tribunal sent correspondence to the applicant, seeking his input on dates to reschedule the summary hearing. The applicant was informed that if he did not respond to the correspondence by April 4, 2013, the Application could be dismissed as abandoned.

8To date, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s correspondence.

9In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

10The Application is dismissed.