Matthew Deveaux v. Transglobe Apartment Real Estate Investment Trust, 2014 HRTO 95

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Matthew Deveaux

Applicant

-and-

Transglobe Apartment Real Estate Investment Trust

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: January 22, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 95

Indexed as: Deveaux v. Transglobe Apartment Real Estate Investment Trust

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code"), scheduled to proceed to a hearing on February 3, 2014.

2The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing summarized the requirements as follows:

By July 3, 2013, you must deliver to every other party:

• a list of all arguably relevant documents in the party's possession. Where privilege is claimed over any document the party must describe the nature of the document and the reason for making the claim; and
• a copy of each document contained on the list, excluding any documents for which privilege is claimed.

File a Statement of Delivery (Form 23) with the HRTO confirming delivery of the list and documents on the other parties. You do not need to file copies of the documents with the HRTO at this time.

Unless otherwise directed by the HRTO, not later than December 20, 2013, you must deliver to every other party and file with the HRTO:

• a list of all documents you intend to rely on at the hearing;
• a copy of each document on that list for the HRTO;
• a copy of every document on that list for each party or confirmation every document has already been provided to the other parties;
• a witness list that includes the name of every witness, including expert witnesses, you intend to present to the HRTO;
• a statement summarizing the expected evidence of each witness;
• where you intend to rely on the evidence of a proposed expert witness, a copy of the expert's written report or a full summary of the expert's proposed evidence and the expert's curriculum vitae;
• the Statement of Delivery of the Rule 16.2 list and documents on the other parties.

3In C.D. v. Wal-Mart Canada Inc., 2010 HRTO 426, the Tribunal explained, at para. 7:

The exchange of documents (Rule 16) and witness statements (Rule 17) 45 days prior to the hearing is a critical part of the Tribunal's process. It ensures that each party fully understands the other side's case and enables the Tribunal to make Case Assessment Directions to structure the hearing. In appropriate cases, adoption of the witness statements may take the place of examination-in-chief of the witness. Witness statements should therefore be detailed and set out the particular evidence that the witness will give, rather than just general topics. A witness statement should be filed for each witness, including an applicant or individual respondent. Where the Application or Response itself makes clear the proposed testimony, the witness statement may simply confirm that the summary of facts in the Application or Response is complete and reflects the evidence that will be given by the applicant or individual respondent.

4A Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") was sent to the parties on January 14, 2014, alerting the applicant to the fact that he had failed to comply with the obligations under Rules 16 and 17 and providing him with a further 7 days to comply. The CAD was sent to the applicant by regular mail, courier and email. The CAD also indicated that the Application could be dismissed as abandoned if the applicant did not file the materials required under Rules 16 and 17, within the extended deadline of January 21, 2014.

5There is no indication that the applicant has not received the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing and the CAD recently issued by the Tribunal as the latter was sent to the email address provided by the applicant and used by him in the past to communicate with the Tribunal. I am satisfied that the applicant has received notice of the impending hearing and the CAD dated January 14, 2014.

6No witness statements or documents had been filed by the applicant by December 20, 2013, as required under the Rules and the Tribunal has not received any materials from the applicant or been contacted by him since the January 14, 2014 CAD was issued.

7Accordingly, this Application is dismissed as abandoned.