Fernando v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 HRTO 259

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tuleep Fernando

Applicant

-and-

The Law Society of Upper Canada, Law Society Foundation, Marion Boyd, Chris Thomas, and Thomas Conway

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: March 4, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 259

Indexed as: Fernando v. The Law Society of Upper Canada

APPEARANCES

Tuleep Fernando, Applicant

No one appearing

The Law Society of Upper Canada and Thomas Conway, Respondent

Dolores Barbini, Counsel

The Law Foundation, Marion Boyd, and Chris Thomas, Respondents

Elizabeth Forster, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2On its own motion, the Tribunal determined it was appropriate to schedule a summary hearing to determine if the Application should be dismissed for delay, or as having no reasonable prospect of success.

3The Notice of Summary Hearing was issued on November 12, 2014, setting a hearing to be held by telephone conference call, on February 26, 2015.

4On February 21, 2015, the applicant sent a letter seeking an adjournment of the hearing. The applicant stated that the request was made "because for personal reasons I have not been able to serve and file my submissions and I am also not in a position to participate in the hearing on that day."

5The respondents opposed the adjournment request. The applicant's adjournment request was considered by a Vice-chair of the Tribunal who issued Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 231 on February 25, 2015. The Interim Decision explained that the Tribunal's usual approach to last minute adjournment requests and noted that such requests are normally granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The Vice-chair concluded:

In my view, the applicant's vague statement that for "personal reasons" he is not in a position to participate in the summary hearing on February 26, 2015 does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance which justifies adjourning the hearing.

Accordingly, the applicant's request to adjourn the summary hearing scheduled for February 26, 2015 is denied. The hearing will proceed as scheduled. The applicant is directed to inform the Tribunal and the respondents by no later than 3:00 p.m. today whether he will be attending the hearing. If he informs the Tribunal and the respondents that he will not be attending the hearing, or fails to attend the hearing, the Application will likely be dismissed.

6The applicant did not make any contact with the Tribunal or the respondents on February 25 or at any time since the Interim Decision was issued. The hearing proceeded on February 26, 2015 and the applicant did not call in to the hearing.

7After waiting twenty minutes, the respondents asked to make submissions regarding the Application. I advised that the Tribunal's usual approach when an applicant does not appear for a scheduled hearing is to dismiss the Application as abandoned. The respondents asked that I instead consider the merits of the issues identified by the Tribunal as issues for the summary hearing – the delay issue, whether the Application has no reasonable prospect of success, and whether the personal respondent should be removed as respondents. I heard submissions from the respondents on these issues. By that time, forty-five minutes has elapsed from the start of the hearing and the applicant had still not called in. The applicant has made no contact with the Tribunal since his failure to appear at the summary hearing.

8I appreciate that the respondents have expended considerable time and resources responding to the Application and I understand the request that the Application be dismissed on the merits of the Application. However, I have concluded that it is appropriate to dismiss the Application as abandoned as I am not convinced that there is any adjudicative purpose in determining the issues identified as issues for the summary hearing.

DECISION

9The Application is dismissed as abandoned.