Corey White v. API Alarm Company, 2015 HRTO 289

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Corey White Applicant

-and-

API Alarm Company Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: March 10, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 289 Indexed as: White v. API Alarm Company

Reasons for Decision

1The parties participated in a summary hearing by conference call on July 7, 2014, during which a number of directions were issued. The hearing was adjourned to permit the applicant time to file a police report, which he referred to throughout his written and oral submissions, as well as further particulars of his allegations.

2The applicant filed further particulars in accordance with the Tribunal’s direction. He did not file a copy of the police report.

3The summary hearing was set to resume on February 27, 2014 by conference call at 9:30 a.m. after consultation with the parties on their availability.

4The respondent was in attendance at the scheduled time, however, the applicant was not.

5Consistent with the Tribunal’s practice, I waited 30 minutes for the applicant to join the call. The applicant did not join the call during that time. There is no indication that the applicant did not receive notice of the date, time and call-in instructions for the resumption of the hearing. I am satisfied that the applicant has abandoned the Application against the organizational respondent as well as the individually named respondents. Given the circumstances of this dismissal, I do not consider it necessary to include the names of the individually named respondents in this Decision.

6Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.