Mporo v. Graner, 2015 HRTO 939

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Mporo Applicant

-and-

Gailia Graner Respondent

-and-

COSTI Immigrant Services Intervenor

A N D B E T W E E N:

David Mporo Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: July 16, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 939 Indexed as: Mporo v. Graner

APPEARANCES

David Mporo, Applicant No one appearing

Gallia Graner, Respondent Self-represented

Toronto District School Board, Respondent Gail Geronimo, Counsel

COSTI Immigrant Services, Intervenor Adrian Jakibchuk, Counsel

1The applicant filed these Applications under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2In a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) dated January 28, 2015, the Tribunal directed that these Applications proceed to a summary hearing to determine whether they should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

3In a CAD dated March 27, 2015, the Tribunal directed that the issue of whether these Applications should be consolidated would be determined, if necessary, after the summary hearing into the Applications and directed that one summary hearing would be held where the Tribunal would consider both Applications together.

4On April 10, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties confirming that a summary hearing of the Applications would take place by teleconference on July 14, 2015 commencing at 9:30 a.m., and it provided call-in information. The Notice was delivered to the applicant at the last address provided by the applicant to the Tribunal and was not returned as undeliverable.

5The April 10, 2015 Notice advised the parties of the consequences of failing to attend at the hearing:

If you do not attend the hearing after receiving proper notice, the HRTO may proceed in your absence (if you are a respondent or intervener) or dismiss the Application as abandoned (if you are the applicant).

6I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing.

7On April 13, 2015, the Tribunal received correspondence from the Applicant indicating that he was displeased with the Tribunal’s decision to deal with both Applications in one summary hearing, stating that he wanted a public hearing of each Application and advising that he was refusing to participate in the summary hearing.

8The applicant was not in attendance at the commencement of the scheduled summary hearing. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. before proceeding.

9At 10:00 a.m. the applicant was not in attendance.

10In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed on the basis that the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.