Ziegler v. Mississauga (City), 2014 HRTO 1374

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

George Ziegler Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Mississauga Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: September 16, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1374 Indexed as: Ziegler v. Mississauga (City)

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 July 31, 2012.

2By Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 89, issued January 17, 2013, the Tribunal deferred proceeding with this Application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding. The Tribunal’s Interim Decision drew the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which outline the procedure by which a deferred application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the other proceeding.

3On January 17, 2014 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant. The applicant was asked to inform the Registrar in writing within 30 days of the date of the letter whether the other proceeding remained ongoing and, if possible, to indicate when it was expected to be completed. The letter went on to warn the applicant that failure to provide the requested information might result in the Tribunal dismissing the Application as abandoned. The letter also drew the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

4On February 14, 2014, the Tribunal received email correspondence from the applicant indicating that he had an arbitration on February 24 and 25, 2014.

5On April 14, 2014 the Tribunal again wrote to the applicant. The applicant was asked to inform the Registrar in writing within 10 days of the date of the letter whether the other proceeding remained ongoing and, if possible, to indicate when it was expected to be completed. The letter went on to warn the applicant that failure to provide the requested information might result in the Tribunal dismissing the Application as abandoned. The letter again drew the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules, and indicated that where a party wishes to proceed with an application that was deferred, a request must be made in accordance with Rule 19, and must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding.

6On May 2, 2014, the Tribunal received email correspondence from the applicant indicating that his proceeding with the union was over, and inquiring when his hearing would be at the Tribunal.

7On June 9, 2014, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, advising him that if he wished to proceed with the Application, pursuant to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunals’ Rules, he must deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10), to re-activate the Application, in accordance with Rule 19 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

8On July 31, 2014, the Tribunal also issued a Case Assessment Direction, indicating that the applicant had not complied with the direction in the Tribunal’s June 9, 2014 letter to him, and that it appeared that he may have abandoned the Application. The applicant was again advised that, if he wished to proceed with the Application, he must deliver and file a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) to reactivate the Application, in accordance with Rule 19 of the Tribunal’s Rules, within 7 days, failing which the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

9To date, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s June 9, 2014 letter or July 31, 2014 Case Assessment Direction. The Tribunal’s letter and Case Assessment Direction to the applicant have not been returned as undeliverable.

10In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application and the Application is dismissed.