Danaher v. Woodstock General Hospital, 2014 HRTO 1546

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Martin Danaher

Applicant

-and-

Woodstock General Hospital

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Date: October 17, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1546
Indexed as: Danaher v. Woodstock General Hospital

1A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled for November 10, 2014 in London.

2An October 3, 2014 Case Assessment Direction alerted the applicant to the fact that he had failed to comply with Rule 16.1 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure regarding pre-hearing disclosure of documents and witnesses because he had failed to provide a copy of the documents he intended to rely on at the hearing, a list of his witnesses and his witness statements to the respondent and the Tribunal by no later than September 26, 2014. The Case Assessment Direction directed the applicant to deliver these to the respondent and file them with the Tribunal by no later than October 10, 2014.

3The Case Assessment Direction also noted the applicant had requested certain documents from the respondent but did not file a Form 10 Request for an Order During Proceedings, despite being advised to do so in a July 7, 2014 Registrar’s letter. It further noted that in an August 26, 2014 Registrar’s letter, the applicant was asked to confirm by no later than September 5, 2014 if he was renewing his request for document disclosure, but he did not do so, and he was again asked to do so by October 10, 2014.

4The Case Assessment Direction also directed the applicant to sign a Consent form to allow the respondent to release the applicant’s medical records to him as he had requested, and to deliver it to the respondent and file it with the Tribunal by no later than October 10, 2014, along with a Form 23 Statement of Delivery.

5Finally, the Case Assessment Direction advised the applicant that if he did not contact the Tribunal at all by October 10, 2014, his case may be dismissed as abandoned.

6The Tribunal notes the Case Assessment Direction was delivered to the applicant by both e-mail and mail, and although the e-mail was returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable, the mail was not. In addition, the applicant has not advised the Tribunal of any change of address.

7The applicant has not contacted the Tribunal and he has failed to provide any documents, witness lists or witness statements.

8In the circumstances, it appears that the applicant has abandoned the Application.

ORDER

9The Application is dismissed as abandoned.