HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jose Kaseba
Applicant
-and-
Chubb Edwards a U.T.C. Fire, Security and Climate Control Company, Tina Tackore and Rose Chunara
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Kaseba v. Chubb Edwards a U.T.C., Fire, Security and Climate Control Company
APPEARANCES
Jose Kaseba, Applicant
Marcia Channer, Representative
Chubb Edwards a U.T.C. Fire, Security and Climate Control Company, Tina Tackore and Rose Chunara, Respondents
Kristin Taylor, Counsel
1This Application was filed on April 25, 2012. In an Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 2040, the Tribunal consolidated this Application with two other Applications which appeared to be factually related. Ms. Channer is the representative for all three of the Applications.
2The Tribunal scheduled a three day block of hearings on April 2, 3, and 4, 2013. The applicants in the other two Applications appeared and so did Ms. Channer. Mr. Kaseba did not appear.
3Ms. Channer advised that Mr. Kaseba was not available due to health issues. She said that he had been advised by his doctor to not attend the hearing. Upon learning this at the start of the hearing on April 2, I asked Ms. Channer to clarify whether Mr. Kaseba would be able to attend on the subsequent days. On April 3, 2013, Mr. Kaseba did not appear and was reported to be going to see his doctor on April 4. On April 4 he did not attend the hearing but did attend his doctor. Through his representative, Ms. Channer, the applicant was directed to provide clarification and documentation in support of his failure to attend the scheduled hearings and to confirm that he wished to proceed with the Application.
4The hearing of the other two Applications was not completed in the April 2013 block of hearings and another block of hearings was scheduled for May 21, 22 and 23, 2013.
5In a Case Assessment Direction dated May 8, 2013, I noted that the clarification and documentation regarding the applicant’s failure to attend the April hearings had not been provided and nor had he confirmed that he intended to pursue the Application. The applicant was directed to immediately confirm that he would be present at the hearings scheduled in May 2013 and that failure to do so might result in dismissal of the Application as abandoned or as an abuse of the Tribunal’s process.
6On May 13, 2013, Ms. Channer sent a letter to the Tribunal confirming that the applicant would be present at the May 21, 2013 hearing.
7At the continuation of the hearing on May 21, 2013, the applicant did not appear. Ms. Channer advised that she had received a text message that morning from the applicant, indicating that he would not be attending due to health problems. No further details were available.
8The respondents asked that the Application be dismissed. Ms. Channer advised that she had no further information about the applicant’s failure to attend.
9I noted that the applicant had previously been told that he was required to provide clarification and documentation about his failure to attend the first block of hearings and he had not done this. He had confirmed that he would be present on May 21, 2013. The Tribunal and the respondents had prepared accordingly. The applicant had not provided his representative with any details about his new failure to attend or when or if he would be able to attend in the future.
10In these circumstances, I concluded that it would be an abuse of the Tribunal’s process to grant an adjournment of the applicant’s Application and the Application was dismissed on that basis.
DECISION
11The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of May, 2013.
“Signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair