Dwayne Manning v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 1409

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Dwayne Manning Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Chief of Police William Blair, Constable Nicholas Chaudhary, Constable Sean Moxham Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: September 23, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1409 Indexed as: Manning v. Toronto Police Services Board

APPEARANCES

Toronto Police Services Board, Chief of Police William Blair, Constable Nicholas Chaudhary and Constable Sean Moxham, Respondents Michele Wright, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ancestry and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2By Notice of Hearing dated February 19, 2014, the Application was scheduled for a hearing on September 22-24, 2014.

3On April 11, 2014, the applicant's counsel advised the Tribunal and respondents' counsel that the applicant had died. Counsel stated he would advise the parties and the Tribunal in due course whether there was any intention to continue the Application.

4On September 4, 2014, the applicant's counsel advised the Tribunal and counsel for the respondents that at present, the applicant's mother intended to proceed with the Application.

5By Case Assessment Direction dated September 8, 2014, the applicant's counsel was directed to file his hearing documents by September 15, 2014.

6On September 15, 2014, the applicant's counsel advised the Tribunal that he was no longer representing the applicant or the estate, and that he had been unable to obtain instructions. He further advised that he had no hearing documents to file with the Tribunal and did not know whether a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Administrator had been obtained by the applicant's mother. Counsel provided the Tribunal with the contact information for the applicant's mother.

7On September 16, 2014, the respondents' counsel wrote to the Tribunal requesting a dismissal of the Application because: (a) no Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee had been filed; (b) no hearing disclosure had been filed; and (c) the action was personal to the applicant and could not proceed. Respondents' counsel requested an adjournment of the hearing if the Application was not dismissed.

8By Case Assessment Direction dated September 16, 2014, the Tribunal converted the hearing scheduled for September 22-24, 2014 to a one-hour case management conference call on September 22, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. to address the following issues:

a. Whether the applicant's mother has obtained or intends to obtain a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee;

b. If a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee is obtained, whether the estate intends to proceed with the Application without legal counsel;

c. If a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee is obtained, what process should be followed for hearing submissions on the respondents' request to dismiss the Application on the basis that it is personal to the applicant.

9The applicant's mother was advised if she did not attend the case management conference call on September 22, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

10The applicant's mother was not in attendance at the commencement of the conference call at 9:30 a.m. on September 22, 2014. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. before proceeding.

11At 10:00 a.m. the applicant's mother was not in attendance nor had she communicated with the Tribunal to explain her failure to attend. In the circumstances, the Tribunal issued an oral ruling that the Application was dismissed on the basis that the Application had been abandoned. These are the written reasons for that decision.

DECISION

12The Application is dismissed as abandoned.