Garnham v. Cree-Aski Service, 2016 HRTO 102

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John Garnham Applicant

-and-

Cree-Aski Service Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: January 21, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 102 Indexed as: Garnham v. Cree-Aski Service

APPEARANCES

John Garnham, Applicant

No one appearing

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of age.

2By Notice of Hearing dated August 20, 2015, the matter was set down for hearing on January 25, 2016 in Timmins, Ontario. The Notice of Hearing directed the parties to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure by exchanging with one another and filing with the Tribunal the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing, a list of their witnesses and a summary of their witnesses’ anticipated evidence by no later than December 11, 2015.

3By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), dated January 4, 2016, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide the required hearing materials by no later than January 11, 2016. The parties were advised that there were serious consequences for the case if they failed to meet his obligations. The applicant was advised the Application may be dismissed as abandoned. The CAD was sent to the parties by regular mail and courier. By e-mail message dated January 18, 2016, the respondent requested an extension to the deadline to meet its disclosure obligations. The Tribunal extended the deadline to January 20, 2016 for both parties, which was relayed to the parties in an e-mail message dated January 18, 2016. The respondent sought a further extension, which was denied in light of the upcoming hearing date. The respondent subsequently filed some documents. The applicant has not filed any documents or contacted the Tribunal.

4As of the date of this Decision, the applicant has not filed the materials as required, and did not contact the Tribunal to advise the reason for his failure to comply with the direction set out in the CAD. In the circumstances, it appears that the applicant does not intend to proceed with the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

ORDER

5The Application is dismissed as abandoned and the hearing date of January 25, 2016 is cancelled.