S.S. v. Peel District School Board, 2016 HRTO 1163

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

S.S. by his litigation guardian D.S.

Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board and David Suzuki Secondary School

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: September 2, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1163

Indexed as: S.S. v. Peel District School Board

APPEARANCES

S.S. by his litigation guardian, D.S., Applicant

No one appearing

Peel District School Board and David Suzuki Secondary School, Respondents

Melanie D. McNaught, Counsel

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on September 8, 2014.

2On September 14, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties confirming that a hearing of the Application would take place on March 7 and 8, 2016 commencing at 9:30 a.m. at the Tribunal’s hearing centre at 655 Bay St, 14th Floor, Toronto, Ontario. The Notice was delivered to the applicant at the last address provided by the applicant to the Tribunal and was not returned as undeliverable.

3On February 8, 2016, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal, requesting that the hearing be deferred until August, 2016. He also wrote to the respondents, copying the Tribunal, requesting their consent to adjourn and reschedule. The respondents advised that they did not object to an adjournment, but requested that the matter not be rescheduled in July or August, due to availability of their witnesses. The applicant responded, again, copying the Tribunal, stating that any date in September would work for him. The March 7 and 8, 2016 hearing dates were adjourned.

4On April 6, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction, directing that a preliminary hearing be scheduled in this matter to determine whether the litigation guardian should be removed, as the Respondent took the position that no litigation guardian was necessary in this matter.

5On July 22, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Preliminary Hearing to the parties confirming that a preliminary hearing of the Application would take place on September 9, 2016, commencing at 9:30 a.m., by teleconference. The Notice also included the telephone coordinates necessary for participation in the teleconference. The Notice was delivered to the applicant at the last address provided by the applicant to the Tribunal and was not returned as undeliverable.

6On July 27, 2016, the respondents wrote to the Tribunal, copying the applicant, advising that they were not available for a hearing on September 8, 2016. They indicated that they had conferred with the applicant to discuss alternative dates, that the applicant expressed the desire to schedule the Preliminary Hearing before the start of the school year, and that the parties “are available for the Preliminary Hearing on September 2, 2016”.

7On July 29, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Preliminary Hearing to the parties confirming that a preliminary hearing of the Application would take place on September 2, 2016, commencing at 9:30 a.m., by teleconference. The Notice also included the telephone coordinates necessary for participation in the teleconference. The Notice was delivered to the applicant at the last address provided by the applicant to the Tribunal and was not returned as undeliverable.

8Each of the above-referenced Notices of Hearing advised the parties as follows:

FAILURE TO ATTEND 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).

9I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing.

10The applicant was not in attendance at the commencement of the scheduled hearing on September 2, 2016. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. before proceeding.

11At 10:00 a.m. the applicant was not in attendance nor had the applicant communicated with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend.

12In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed on the basis that the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.