King v. Bluffers Park Marina, 2016 HRTO 1046

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Louis King

Applicant

-and-

Bluffers Park Marina

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: August 9, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1046 Indexed as: King v. Bluffers Park Marina

APPEARANCES

Louis King, Applicant No one appearing

Bluffers Park Marina, Respondent Michelle Mears, Self-represented

1Pursuant to the Notice of Hearing dated April 11, 2016 (“the Notice”), this Application, which alleges discrimination in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), was scheduled for hearing on August 8, 2016 commencing at 9:30 a.m.

2A Case Assessment Direction dated July 13, 2016 (“the July 13 CAD”) was issued when the parties failed to comply with the Tribunal’s directions about pre-hearing disclosure as set out in the Notice. The respondent subsequently complied with the disclosure obligations, but the applicant did not.

3A second Case Assessment Direction, dated July 27, 2016 (“the July 27 CAD”) was issued after the applicant’s representative, his wife Alice King, emailed the Tribunal. She did not copy the respondent on her email. Ms. King advised that the applicant would be the only witness and that his medical issues did not allow him to be at the hearing.

4In the July 27 CAD, the Tribunal stated that adjournments are granted in exceptional circumstances, and that the Tribunal has found medical conditions to constitute exceptional circumstances. It stated that if the applicant was seeking an adjournment, he was required to make a request, by email, by August 2, 2016, setting out the reason for the adjournment and medical documentation confirming that the adjournment request was for medical reasons. The Tribunal stated that in the absence of an adjournment request being granted, the hearing would proceed on August 8, 2016 as scheduled.

5The applicant did not make an adjournment request or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal.

6The applicant did not attend the August 8 hearing. The respondent did. Consistent with the Tribunal’s practice of holding down the start of a hearing for 30 minutes, at 10:05, the applicant still had not attended the hearing or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal and the Application was orally dismissed as abandoned. This Decision confirms that the Application is dismissed as abandoned.