Hamilton v. A & K Roofing, 2014 HRTO 1551

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Scott Hamilton

Applicant

-and-

A & K Roofing

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: October 17, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1551

Indexed as: Hamilton v. A & K Roofing

1This matter is scheduled for hearing in London on November 19, 2014 (“the November hearing”) pursuant to a Notice of Hearing dated May 23, 2014 (“the Notice”). The Notice set out various deadlines by which the parties were to comply with their disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The Notice was sent by regular mail to the applicant’s address as stated on his Application which was filed on February 7, 2014 and was not returned by Canada Post.

2For the reasons set out below, the Application is dismissed as abandoned and the November hearing is cancelled.

background

3On July 18, 2014, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) in which it submitted that the applicant had not complied with his disclosure obligations set out in the Notice, specifically his arguably relevant documents to the respondent. The applicant did not file a Response to the RFOP and the time elapsed for doing so.

4An Interim Decision, 2014 HRTO 1230, dated August 19, 2014 was issued by the Tribunal addressing this RFOP. In it, the Tribunal ordered, at para. 6:

a. Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision the applicant must deliver all arguably relevant documents to the respondent and/or confirm in writing that he does not have any arguably relevant documents; and

b. Within 14 days of this Interim Decision the applicant must confirm in writing to the respondent and the Tribunal that he intends to proceed with the Application and that he will be attending the scheduled hearing.

5The applicant did not comply with this Order or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal. The Interim Decision was sent, by regular mail and courier, to the address the applicant provided on his Application and was not returned as being undeliverable.

6The respondent filed another RFOP on September 4, 2014 requesting that the Application be dismissed as the applicant had failed to comply with the Order. The applicant did not file a Response to this RFOP and the time for doing so had elapsed.

7A Case Assessment Direction dated September 26, 2014 (“the CAD”) was sent in which the Tribunal directed the following:

1. By Monday, October 6, 2014, the applicant must file all arguably relevant documents as well as all documents upon which the applicant intends to rely with the Tribunal, copying the respondent;

2. If the applicant does not have any arguably relevant documents and/or any documents upon which he intends to rely, he is to confirm that in writing with the Tribunal, copying the respondent;

3. By Monday, October 6, 2014, the applicant is to identify the witnesses that he intends to call, and provide a summary of their anticipated evidence, with the Tribunal, copying the respondent. If the applicant does not have any witnesses other than himself, he is to confirm this in writing with the Tribunal, copying the respondent, and setting out a summary of his anticipated evidence; and

4. By Monday, October 6, 2014, the applicant must confirm in writing with the Tribunal, copying the respondent, that he intends to proceed with the Application and that he will be attending the scheduled hearing.

8The Tribunal warned, at para. 9, about the consequences of not complying with this direction. It stated:

If the applicant does not comply with the directions set out in this Case Assessment Direction, or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal, then his Application will be dismissed as abandoned.

9The CAD was sent by regular mail and courier, Purolator, to the address the applicant provided on his Application. The Purolator copy was returned to the Tribunal as being “unclaimed”, but the regular mail copy was not returned.

10On October 7, 2014, the respondent filed another RFOP requesting that the Application be dismissed because the applicant did not comply with the direction in the CAD. In light of the applicant’s failure to comply with the Tribunal’s direction in the CAD, it is not necessary to wait until the time limit for responding to the RFOP has elapsed.

11Initially, the applicant filed an incomplete Application. The Tribunal wrote to him at the address provided on his Application for additional information, which was received by the Tribunal on March 14, 2014. Since then, the applicant had not communicated with the Tribunal. He also has not provided another address to the Tribunal. With the exception of the Purolator copy of the CAD being returned to the Tribunal as being unclaimed, the other communications issued by the Tribunal by regular mail and courier have not been returned to it as being undeliverable.

12In light of the applicant’s failure to comply with the direction in the CAD, the Tribunal dismisses the Application as abandoned and the November hearing date is cancelled.