Peprah v. Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, 2015 HRTO 1106

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Edward Peprah Applicant

-and-

Royal Ottawa Health Care Group Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart Date: August 19, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1106 Indexed as: Peprah v. Royal Ottawa Health Care Group

1This is an Application dated February 14, 2014 alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, place of origin and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The hearing in this matter is currently scheduled to proceed on August 28, 2015 in Ottawa.

3By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated July 22, 2015 and issued to the parties, the Tribunal noted that to that date, no party to this proceeding had complied with their pre-hearing obligations to file a list of witnesses, a summary of each witness’ expected evidence and a copy of the documents they intended to rely upon at the hearing.

4These pre-hearing obligations are set out in the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Further, the parties had been reminded of their pre-hearing obligations in the Notice of Hearing dated March 17, 2015, and had been directed to comply with their pre-hearing obligations by no later than July 14, 2015. The Notice of Hearing specifically stated that, if the applicant did not disclose and file the required materials, the Application may be dismissed.

5The CAD dated July 22, 2015 noted that the Tribunal had not received a list of the documents upon which the applicant intended to rely at the hearing or a copy of each document on that list. The CAD indicated that documents that would be relevant to this proceeding include: any notes or records the applicant may have made, whether handwritten or electronic, regarding his experience working for the respondent; and any documents relating to the applicant’s efforts to obtain alternate employment since October 1, 2013, including job search records.

6In addition, the CAD noted that the applicant had not provided a list of the witnesses he intended to call or a summary of their expected evidence. The CAD indicated that, if the applicant intended to testify on his own behalf at the hearing and only intended to testify as to the matters set out in the Application, then he merely needed to confirm this. The CAD stated that, if there were other matters to which the applicant intended to testify, then he needed to provide a summary of what these other matters were. In particular, the CAD noted that the applicant had not filed a Reply after receiving the respondent’s Response to his Application. The CAD indicated that the Response includes detailed information regarding the training alleged to have been provided to the applicant, the errors that he is alleged to have made, and meetings with the applicant to discuss these alleged errors. The CAD stated that, if the applicant intended to provide an alternate version of these alleged events, then he needed to provide a statement setting out what his alternate version of these events was. In particular, the CAD noted that it would be helpful if the applicant in any such statement addressed the specifics as set out in the Response at paras. 5 to 26.

7The CAD further stated that, if the applicant intended to call any other witnesses to testify at the hearing, then he needed to indicate this to the Tribunal and the respondent and provide a summary of each witness’ expected evidence.

8With regard to the respondent, the CAD noted that the respondent also had not filed a list of the documents upon which it intended to rely at the hearing or a copy of these documents, and that the respondent also needed to provide the Tribunal and the applicant with a list of the witnesses it intended to call to testify at the hearing and a summary of their expected evidence.

9The CAD directed the parties to serve their pre-hearing materials on the opposing party and file this material with the Tribunal by no later than August 7, 2015. The CAD specifically stated that, if the applicant failed to serve and file these materials within the time period indicated, this Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

10The respondent filed its pre-hearing materials on August 5, 2015, including the documents upon which it intended to rely, a list of witnesses, and detailed will-say statements for each witness.

11Notwithstanding that he had been notified of his pre-hearing obligations in the Notice of Hearing and again in the CAD and had been warned that his Application may be dismissed if he failed to comply with these obligations, the applicant failed to comply with his pre-hearing obligations by the extended August 7, 2015 deadline or to date and has not communicated in any manner with the Tribunal in response to the CAD.

12The Notice of Hearing and the CAD were sent to the applicant by mail at the address he provided in his Application. The CAD was also sent to the applicant by e-mail at the e-mail address he provided in his Application. The Tribunal did not have the mailed items returned to it as undelivered, and received no notification that the e-mail sent to the applicant was undeliverable. The Tribunal previously had sent correspondence to the applicant at the address provided in his Application as recently as November 21, 2014, which was received and acted upon by the applicant when he was notified of, and attended, a teleconference hearing in this matter held on February 17, 2015. At no time has the applicant advised the Tribunal of any change to his mailing or e-mail addresses as set out in his Application, which is his obligation to do pursuant to Rule 1.13. As a result, I am satisfied that the applicant received the Notice of Hearing in this matter and also received the CAD dated July 22, 2015.

13By filing his Application, the applicant has initiated a legal proceeding against the respondent. It is his responsibility to remain actively involved in this legal proceeding, and to fulfil his obligations under this Tribunal’s Rules. The applicant was reminded of these obligations and was given two opportunities to comply with his obligations. The applicant was further warned of the consequences of his failure to comply with his obligations. However, despite being given these opportunities to comply, the applicant has failed to do so and has failed even to communicate with the Tribunal in response to the CAD.

14In these circumstances, it appears that the applicant has abandoned the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

ORDER

15The Application is dismissed as abandoned and the hearing date scheduled for August 28, 2015 is cancelled.