Odegbile v. Dircam Electric Ltd., 2015 HRTO 623

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Babatunde Odegbile

Applicant

-and-

Dircam Electric Ltd.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: May 13, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 623

Indexed as: Odegbile v. Dircam Electric Ltd.

1This is an Application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. The Application is scheduled to be heard on May 15, 2015.

2On December 15, 2015, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Hearing directing them to take certain steps in advance of the hearing. In particular, and among other things, the Notice of Hearing directed the parties to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure by providing one another with copies of their arguably relevant documents within 21 days of the date of the Notice of Hearing; and by exchanging with one another and filing with the Tribunal the documents they intended to rely upon at the hearing, a list of their witnesses and a summary of their witnesses’ anticipated evidence by no later than March 31, 2015 (i.e. 45 days before the first scheduled day of hearing).

3The applicant did not provide the Tribunal with the materials required under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure by March 31, 2015.

4In an April 21, 2015 Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide the required materials to the respondent and the Tribunal by no later than April 28, 2015.

5In its CAD, the Tribunal warned the applicant that there were serious consequences for the case if the applicant did not comply with the Tribunal’s directions. In particular, the Tribunal’s CAD contained the following directions to the applicant:

By no later than April 28, 2015, the applicant must deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal the documents he intends to rely upon at the hearing, a list of his witnesses and a brief statement describing what his witnesses will say when they testify. If the applicant has not complied with this direction by April 28, 2015, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant is reminded that he must also submit a witness statement for himself, assuming he intends to testify at the hearing. However, if the applicant only intends to testify about the facts already contained in his Application, it is sufficient for him to confirm this in writing by April 28, 2015.

If the applicant does not communicate with the Tribunal at all by April 28, 2015, his case may be dismissed as abandoned.

6The CAD was delivered to the applicant by mail, email and courier. The municipal address used was the address provided by the applicant by email on July 28, 2014 and the email address used was the address provided on the Application. Purolator confirmed the package was delivered although it noted an address correction had been done which I presume related to the postal code. Neither the mailed copy nor the email copy was returned as undeliverable.

7I reviewed the file and as it appeared that the applicant had more recently used a different email address from that provided on the Application, I directed Tribunal staff to email another copy of the Case Assessment Direction to the parties (in the case of the applicant to the email address used more recently) and to extend the deadline for responding to May 11, 2015. On May 5, 2015, the CAD was re-sent to the parties (to the applicant at both the original and more recent email address provided) and the deadline was extended to May 11, 2015.

8It is now two days past the deadline for complying with the Tribunal’s directions and the applicant has not filed the required materials with the Tribunal, nor has he communicated with the Tribunal otherwise.

9In the circumstances, it appears that the applicant has abandoned the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

ORDER

10The Application is dismissed as abandoned and the May 15, 2015 hearing date is cancelled.