Alan Johnston v. Compass Minerals Canada Corp., 2015 HRTO 47

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alan Johnston
Applicant

-and-

Compass Minerals Canada Corp.
Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Date: January 13, 2015
Citation: 2015 HRTO 47
Indexed as: Johnston v. Compass Minerals Canada Corp.

APPEARANCES

Alan Johnston, Applicant
Self-represented

Compass Minerals Canada Corp., Respondent
Jason Bache, Representative

Introduction

1This Application alleges reprisal with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

Background

2This matter was set for preliminary hearing on January 7, 2015. The day before the hearing, the Tribunal’s scheduler contacted the applicant because it appeared from the Notice of Hearing that he may not have received it because the address was incomplete.

3The applicant advised the Tribunal’s scheduler he received the Notice of Hearing but requested he be permitted to attend by teleconference because he resided in the United States. The applicant was given the contact numbers for the teleconference and was advised that if the respondent had any objection to his attending by teleconference those arguments would be addressed at the outset of the hearing.

4On the date of the hearing, the applicant attended by teleconference. The respondent, whose representative attended in person, objected to the applicant’s attendance by teleconference. He and the applicant made submissions with respect to the respondent’s request that the Application be deemed to have been abandoned.

5At the conclusion of the parties’ arguments with respect to abandonment, the Tribunal advised it was going to take a 15 minute break until 10:30 a.m. to consider the arguments. The Tribunal reconnected to the teleconference line 20 minutes later at 10:35 a.m. The applicant did not re-join the call and did not contact the Tribunal to advise of any connection problems.

6At 11:00 a.m. the Tribunal terminated the call and requested that the Tribunal’s scheduler contact the applicant to ensure he had not had difficulties reconnecting to the call. The scheduler advised at 11:04 a.m. that he called the applicant and got a recording indicating that the telephone’s mailbox had not been set up and he could not leave the applicant a message.

7At 11:13 a.m., the scheduler e-mailed the applicant and told him the Tribunal was waiting on the line and he should call in immediately. The Tribunal opened the conference call line again immediately after the e-mail was sent and waited until 11:30 a.m. for the applicant to join, which he failed to do.

8The respondent made additional arguments with respect to abandonment given the applicant’s failure to re-join the call. He advised that in addition to the applicant not attending the hearing in person as required by the Notice of Hearing and the applicant’s claim that he inadvertently recorded the date of the hearing for February 7 (a Saturday) instead of January 7, the applicant now had failed to reconnect to the call.

9The respondent’s representative submitted the applicant should not be given any more opportunity to prepare for this hearing and the Application should be dismissed as abandoned.

Decision

10The applicant not only failed to attend the hearing in person as he was required to do, he then failed to reconnect to the telephone call. In addition, he failed to contact the Tribunal to advise of any connection issues despite knowing the Tribunal’s contact information. He also knew how to connect to the call because he successfully did so at 10 a.m.

11In light of these circumstances, I find the applicant has abandoned his Application.

Order

12The Application is dismissed.