Mahmoud Ashraf Galal v. Lom Nava Co-op, 2014 HRTO 310

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mahmoud Ashraf Galal

Applicant

-and-

Lom Nava Co-op

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Date: March 19, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 310
Indexed as: Galal v. Lom Nava Co-op

APPEARANCES

Mahmoud Ashrad Galal, Applicant
No one appearing

Lom Nava Co-op, Respondent
Christopher McClelland, Counsel

1This is an Application filed on June 27, 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 housing because of race, ethnic origin, disability, gender identity, gender expression, and receipt of public assistance. In addition, the applicant makes allegations of reprisal, although he did not mark off this ground on his Application form.

2The respondent filed a Response denying the allegations, requested that the Tribunal hold a summary hearing pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, and requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application.

3In a Case Assessment Direction dated October 9, 2013, the Tribunal stated that a summary 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 30, 2013, a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing (“the notice”) was issued to the parties and scheduling the hearing by teleconference (“the hearing”) for March 3, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. The notice was sent by mail and was not returned to the Tribunal.

5The hearing was held on March 3, 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.