Daykin v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, 2015 HRTO 612

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Robert Daykin Applicant

-and-

Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel Randazzo Date: May 12, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 612 Indexed as: Daykin v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited

APPEARANCES

Robert Daykin, Applicant No one appearing

Ford Motor Company of Canada, Respondent Holly Reid, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, CH.19 as amended (the "Code"), on March 28, 2011 alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability and reprisal. The Application was deferred in Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 1294, pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration process. In Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 1729, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request and reactivated the Application.

2By Interim Decision, 2014 HRTO 319, dated March 10, 2014, many of the applicant's allegations against the respondent were dismissed as an abuse of process and on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success. This Interim Decision stated that the remaining allegations, specifically, the allegations that the respondent required the applicant to return to an Independent Medical Exam ("IME"), the applicant was denied straight days pending the applicant's continued cooperation in the IME process, and the respondent required a copy of a lab report which indicated the medications detected in the applicant's blood test would be dealt with following the filing of further material and submissions by the parties.

3By notice dated February 17, 2015 the parties were advised that a summary hearing was scheduled for April 21, 2015 commencing at 1:30 p.m. This summary hearing was to determine if the remaining issues should be dismissed on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success.

4The applicant did not attend the summary hearing. Where a party does not attend a scheduled hearing the Tribunal may proceed in the party's absence. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 2:00 p.m. before proceeding. I informed the respondent that I would dismiss the matter as abandoned with a written decision to follow and I excused the respondent at 2:10 p.m.

5I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing. By correspondence dated September 23, 2014, the applicant advised the Tribunal that his address had changed. The Tribunal sent the February 17, 2015 Notice of Hearing to the applicant's new address as provided by his September 23, 2014 correspondence. The Notice of Hearing was not returned to the Tribunal.

6In view of the applicant's non-attendance at the hearing, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.