Williams v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2013 HRTO 881

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Donald Williams Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission, Lori MacGregor and Nick Valente Respondents

-and-

Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 Intervenor

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: May 22, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 881 Indexed as: Williams v. Toronto Transit Commission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Donald Williams, Applicant Self-represented

Toronto Transit Commission, Lori MacGregor and Nick Valente, Respondents Lucy Siraco, Counsel

Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, Intervenor Dean Ardron, Counsel

Introduction

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 June 28, 2010.

2By Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 1982, dated October 18, 2012, the Tribunal ordered a teleconference hearing to address the respondents' Request that the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it is founded upon confidential and improperly-obtained information.

3On December 7, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties confirming that a hearing of the Application was scheduled to take place by teleconference on May 22, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. The Notice was delivered to the applicant at his home address. The Notice was not returned as undeliverable. As well, the applicant was in e-mail communication with the Tribunal regarding the hearing in the days preceding the hearing. In particular, the applicant had requested that the intervenor's counsel remove himself due to an alleged conflict of interest. The applicant sent an e-mail to the Tribunal and all parties the night before the hearing confirming that he was withdrawing his conflict of interest allegation against the intervenor's counsel. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant had proper notice of the hearing.

4The hearing was convened by teleconference on May 22, 2013, at the scheduled time. Counsel for the respondents and counsel for the intervener called into the teleconference but the applicant did not. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10 a.m. before proceeding.

5At 10 a.m. the applicant still had not called in to the hearing, nor did he communicate with the Tribunal to advise that he was unable to take part.

6Accordingly, I sought submissions from the respondents and the intervener on the appropriate course of action. The respondents submitted that the Application should be dismissed as it was clear that the applicant had notice of the hearing and failed to take part. The intervenor took no position on the issue.

7In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for his failure to attend the hearing, I dismiss the Application as abandoned.

ORDER

8The Application is dismissed.