Sukhdev Chatha v. Hatch Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1652

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sukhdev Chatha Applicant

-and-

Hatch Ltd. Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Bruce Best Date: December 7, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1652 Indexed as: Chatha v. Hatch Ltd.

1This is an Application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. The Application is scheduled to be heard on February 10 and 11, 2016.

2On August 21, 2015, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Hearing directing them to take certain steps in advance of the hearing. In particular, and among other things, the Notice of Hearing directed the parties to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure by providing one another with copies of their arguably relevant documents within 21 days of the date of the Notice of Hearing.

3The respondent filed a Form 23 with the Tribunal on September 11, 2015 indicating that it had delivered its arguably relevant documents to applicant’s counsel by courier. The applicant did not file a Form 23. On October 2, 2015, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RODP”) to require the applicant to comply with Rule 16.1. The Applicant did not respond to the RODP.

4In a November 17, 2015 Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), the Tribunal directed the applicant to comply with the Rules, and warned the applicant that there may be serious consequences for the case if he did not comply. In particular, the Tribunal’s CAD contained the following directions to the applicant:

6Within 7 days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, the applicant must deliver to the respondent his arguably relevant documents, and file with the Tribunal confirmation of delivery together with an explanation for his failure to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules to date.

7If the applicant has not complied with the above direction, or communicated with the Tribunal at all, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

5It is now more than a week past the applicant’s deadline for complying with the Tribunal’s directions and the applicant has not filed the required materials, nor otherwise communicated with the Tribunal. In addition, the applicant has not responded to the respondent’s November 26, 2015 letter seeking to have the Application dismissed as abandoned on the basis of the applicant’s failure to comply with the directions in the CAD.

6In the circumstances, it appears that the applicant has abandoned the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.

ORDER

7The Application is dismissed as abandoned and the February 10 and 11, 2016 hearing dates are cancelled.