HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Szimbah Hanley
Applicant
-and-
Toronto District School Board
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Hanley v. Toronto District School Board
APPEARANCES
Szimbah Hanley, Applicant
No one appearing
Toronto District School Board, Respondent
Wendy Lopez, Counsel; James Kitts, Student-at-Law
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in contracts on the basis of race.
2In a Case Assessment Direction issued on November 24, 2014, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal also directed that a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the removal of several individual respondents would be addressed at that time.
3On December 1, 2014 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties confirming that hearing of the Application would take place on February 5, 2015 commencing at 9:30 a.m. by telephone conference call.
4The respondent requested that the summary hearing be re-scheduled. The applicant agreed that he was available on the proposed re-scheduled dates.
5On December 12, 2014 the Tribunal issued a further Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties confirming that hearing of the Application would take place on March 2, 2015 commencing at 9:30 a.m. by telephone conference call. The Notice was delivered to the applicant at the last address provided by the applicant to the Tribunal and was not returned as undeliverable.
6On February 2, 2015 a copy of the Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the applicant at his request.
7I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing.
8The applicant was not on the conference call at the commencement of the scheduled hearing. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. before proceeding.
9At 10:00 a.m. the applicant was not on the conference call, nor had the applicant communicated with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend.
10In the circumstances, the Application was dismissed on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the Application.
11In the circumstances, the individual respondents need not be identified in this Decision.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of March, 2015.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair