Grzywo v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, 2014 HRTO 193

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Gary Grzywo Applicant

-and-

Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc. Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: February 11, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 193 Indexed as: Grzywo v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing

Appearances

Gary Grzywo, Applicant No one appearing

Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., Respondent Ted Kovacs, Counsel

1This is an Application filed on March 28, 2013, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and reprisal. The respondent filed a Response denying the allegations, claimed that the allegations were untimely, and requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application.

2In correspondence dated August 23, 2013 to the applicant, the Tribunal directed the parties to file submissions addressing the respondent's request to dismiss because of the delay in filing the Application. Both parties filed submissions.

3In a Case Assessment Direction dated September 25, 2013, the Tribunal noted that some or all of the allegations in the Application may be untimely. It stated that a hearing by teleconference would be scheduled to hear the parties' submissions on whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part for delay. It directed the parties to file any further documents upon which they intended to rely in advance of the hearing.

4On October 22, 2013, a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing ("the notice") was issued to the parties and scheduling the hearing by teleconference ("the hearing") for February 11, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. The notice was sent by mail and was not returned to the Tribunal. The respondent filed further materials with the Tribunal, on which the applicant was copied, but the applicant did not.

5The hearing was held on February 11, 2014. The respondent called in, but the applicant did not. Consistent with its practice, the Tribunal held down the start of the hearing until 10:00 a.m. to see if the applicant called in. The applicant did not call in or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal that he was not able to participate in the hearing.

6At 10:00 a.m., the hearing resumed. As the applicant had not called in, the Tribunal orally dismissed the Application as abandoned and stated it would confirm its decision in writing.

7The Application is dismissed as abandoned.