Robinson v. Ethical Solution Providers Inc., 2015 HRTO 1392

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Robinson

Applicant

-and-

Ethical Solution Providers Inc. and Cheryl Quinn

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: October 20, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1392

Indexed as: Robinson v. Ethical Solution Providers Inc.

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on July 31, 2014.

2On May 11, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Rescheduled Hearing to the parties confirming that hearing of the Application would take place on October 20 and 21, 2015, commencing at 9:30 a.m. at the Tribunal’s hearing centre at 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor, Toronto, Ontario. The Notice was delivered to the applicant at the last address provided by the applicant to the Tribunal and was not returned as undeliverable.

3Subsequently, by e-mail correspondence from the Tribunal dated September 22, 2015, the parties were advised that the Tribunal was no longer available for October 21, 2015, but that the hearing would proceed as scheduled on October 20, 2015. This e-mail correspondence was sent to the applicant at the e-mail address shown on his Application and from which the applicant had corresponded with the Tribunal as recently as September 15, 2015. The Tribunal’s e-mail correspondence to the applicant was not returned as undeliverable.

4Further, on October 6, 2015, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision in this matter, denying the applicant’s requests for production of certain documents and information. At para. 2 of this Interim Decision, the Tribunal once again confirmed that the hearing in this matter was scheduled to proceed in Toronto on October 20, 2015. This Interim Decision was sent to the applicant by mail at the address shown on his Application and also by e-mail to the e-mail address shown on the Application, neither of which was returned as undeliverable.

5Accordingly, I am satisfied that the applicant had ample notice of the hearing.

6The applicant was not in attendance at the commencement of the scheduled hearing. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. before proceeding.

7At 10:00 a.m. the applicant still was not in attendance for the hearing. As a result, I conveyed an oral decision to the respondents that the Application was dismissed as abandoned.

8By filing an Application with this Tribunal, the applicant has commenced a serious legal proceeding. This carries with it an obligation, at the very least, to appear for the scheduled hearing. In the absence of the applicant and the presentation of any evidence to support the allegations made in the Application, it is not this Tribunal’s role or responsibility to make an independent inquiry into the allegations. Quite simply, the hearing was the applicant’s opportunity and responsibility to bring forward the evidence to support his case. Here, by not appearing for the hearing, the applicant failed to discharge his obligations and responsibilities.

9In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed on the basis that the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.