Doslo v. LIUNA Local 783, 2015 HRTO 25

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Miran Jordanka Ubavka Doslo

Applicant

-and-

LIUNA Local 783

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: January 8, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 25 Indexed as: Doslo v. LIUNA Local 783

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 June 27, 2014. The Application has not yet been served on the respondent.

2On August 14, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) on the basis that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s power to decide. The applicant was directed to respond to the issues raised in the NOID by no later than September 15, 2014. The NOID advised the applicant that failure to respond to the NOID may be considered an abandonment of the Application and it might be dismissed for that reason.

3The applicant did not responded to the NOID and as a result, the Application was dismissed on October 10, 2014 (2014 HRTO 1522).

4The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration and a request for oral submissions. I agreed that oral submissions would be useful in the circumstances since it was not clear why the applicant failed to respond to the NOID and why the dismissal Decision should be reconsidered.

5The applicant filed a change of address with the reconsideration request. The Tribunal issued a notice dated December 1, 2017 providing the applicant with information on how to connect to a case management conference call. The purpose of the call was to hear oral submissions on the reconsideration request. That notice appears to have been sent to the wrong address. As a result, the applicant was not in attendance on the call when it took place on December 17, 2014.

6The Tribunal issued a second notice dated December 23, 2014 providing the applicant with information on how to connect to a case management conference call on January 6, 2015. The call took place at 10 a.m. as scheduled. The applicant was not in attendance. The Tribunal’s practice is to wait 30 minutes for the applicant to connect to the call. After 30 minutes, the applicant had failed to dial into the conference call.

7The Tribunal records confirm that the second notice was sent to the applicant’s last known address (the new address) by mail and courier and there was no indication that the Notice had been returned. I am satisfied that the applicant received the notice and chose not to participate in the case management conference call.

8The purpose of the call was to consider the applicant’s reasons for failing to respond to the NOID which lead to the Decision dismissing the Application on August 14, 2014. The oral submissions were required because the written materials do not explain why the applicant failed to respond to the NOID. Given all of the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned this Reconsideration Request.

9Accordingly, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.