Hutchinson v. Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2014 HRTO 1261

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Grant Hutchinson Applicant

-and-

Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: August 26, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1261 Indexed as: Hutchinson v. Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology

APPEARANCES

Grant Hutchinson, Applicant Self-represented

Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology, Respondent Ann Burke, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on August 8, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against because of his disability and was reprised against when he was a student of the respondent in 2011 and 2012.

the facts

2On November 6, 2012, the respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing seeking a dismissal of the Application on the basis that the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.

3By Interim Decision dated May 13, 2013 (2013 HRTO 793), the Tribunal dismissed the request by the respondent to dismiss the allegations against it on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success.

4On August 23, 2013, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to advise him that he must treat the other party and the Tribunal with courtesy and respect. The applicant was reminded of a similar direction given by the Tribunal in a different application brought by the applicant. That direction, given in Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 1263, stated:

The applicant is also directed to cease his email communications with the Tribunal unless it is necessary for him to appropriately access the Tribunal process. Occasional and good faith requests for information are appropriate, demands that the Tribunal enforce the law are not. Vexatious comments about the respondent, their counsel, the Tribunal or others in some tangential way connected to this Application are not appropriate.

5On November 10, 2013, the respondent brought a request to dismiss the Application on the basis that the applicant's conduct constituted an abuse of the Tribunal's process.

6On January 9, 2014, a Case Assessment Direction was issued setting out the following directions concerning the applicant's communication with the Tribunal, the respondent, and counsel for the respondent.

a. The applicant shall not communicate with any person at Seneca College;

b. All communications by the applicant with Seneca College shall be with its legal counsel, Ann Burke;

c. The applicant shall cease and desist sending e-mail communications to the Tribunal and Ann Burke;

d. The applicant shall cease and desist calling the Tribunal and Ann Burke;

e. All communications by the applicant with Ann Burke and the Tribunal must be in writing, delivered by regular mail to the Tribunal and Ann Burke.

f. The applicant shall not communicate with Ann Burke and the Tribunal unless it relates to a Tribunal process. If the applicant seeks an interim order from the Tribunal, he must file a Request for Order During Proceedings.

g. The applicant's hearing disclosure as set out in the Notice of Hearing, to be issued, must be delivered to Ann Burke and filed with the Tribunal by regular mail.

7In the January 9, 2014 Case Assessment Direction, the applicant was advised that the Tribunal had the authority under section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 to dismiss an application where parties have engaged in abusive conduct in the Tribunal process.

8On January 14, 2014, the Respondent asked the Tribunal to rule on its request to dismiss the Application on the basis of abuse of process.

9On February 24, 2014, the respondent inquired when a date would be set for the abuse of process hearing. On February 26, 2014, the respondent repeated its request that the Tribunal deal with the abuse of process issue.

10On March 21, 2014, a further Case Assessment Direction was issued directing a summary hearing be held on the respondent's request to dismiss the Application on the basis of abuse of process.

11On March 24, 2014, the Registrar of the Tribunal advised the Applicant that email correspondence would not be accepted and confirmed the Tribunal's direction that correspondence must be delivered by regular mail.

12On March 26, 2014, the parties were provided with a Notice of Summary Hearing for April 29, 2014. The respondent's counsel advised the Tribunal that she was not available on this date.

13On April 24, 2014, the Tribunal provided eight dates in July 2014 for the summary hearing and canvassed the parties' availability. The Tribunal directed the parties to respond by May 14, 12014. The respondent's counsel provided her availability. The applicant did not.

14On May 16, 2014, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and advised him to provide his availability by May 30, 2014. The applicant did not respond.

15On June 12, 2014, the Tribunal advised the parties that the hearing date would be set peremptory on the applicant.

16On June 12, 2014, the applicant advised the Tribunal that he was not available to attend the summary hearing until January 2015 because he had a business to run.

17On June 17, 2014, a Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the parties scheduling the hearing for August 21, 2014.

18On June 17, 2014, the applicant advised the Tribunal he was not available until January 2015.

19On August 6, 2014, the respondent provided written submissions on the summary hearing.

20On August 17, 2014, the applicant repeated his request to schedule the hearing in January 2015 because he had a start-up company to run.

21On August 20, 2014, the respondent provided copies of emails and telephone messages from the applicant to the respondent.

22On August 20, 2014, the applicant was advised by the Tribunal that the hearing would proceed on August 21, 2014.

23The applicant attended the hearing on August 21, 2014. His father attended as well. The applicant repeated his request for an adjournment. He stated his father could not remain on the call, he had requested an adjournment because of his business, he received disclosure from the respondent the day before the hearing, he wanted an investigation conducted, he had filed a privacy complaint, and he wanted witnesses available.

24The applicant was advised the hearing would proceed. He was advised the date was set peremptory on the applicant and that witnesses do not attend the summary hearing. The applicant did not explain how having a business prevented him from attending the summary hearing. The documents sent to the applicant by the respondent, the day before the hearing, were the applicant's own emails and telephone messages. The applicant attended the hearing on August 21, 2014 and was therefore able to do so.

25In the correspondence leading up to the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment because he had a business to run. The Tribunal will grant adjournments in exceptional circumstances only. The fact that the applicant has a business is not an exceptional circumstance. Many people who appear before the Tribunal have work obligations. Proceedings are not adjourned for this reason.

26In response to my ruling the hearing would proceed, the applicant indicated his intention to terminate the call. I advised the applicant that if he did so, his Application would be dismissed as abandoned. The applicant terminated the call.

27In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant has abandoned this Application.

order

28The Application is dismissed as abandoned.