Fitz-Roy Gordon v. Toronto District School Board, 2016 HRTO 1286

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Fitz-Roy Gordon Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: October 3, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1286 Indexed as: Gordon v. Toronto District School Board

APPEARANCES

Fitz-Roy Gordon, Applicant No one appearing

Toronto District School Board, Respondent Patricia G. Murray, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant was self-represented when he filed his Application. He provided an email address on his contact information.

2Pursuant to a Notice of Hearing dated May 19, 2016 (“the Notice”), the hearing in this matter was scheduled for October 11 and 12, 2016. The Notice set out the parties’ disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“the Rules”). The deadline for their disclosure obligations to file with the Tribunal was August 29, 2016.

3On September 2, 2016, Shernett Martin, on behalf of the applicant, and using the applicant’s email address, emailed the Tribunal requesting an extension to comply with the applicant’s disclosure obligations. The respondent did not object to some extension. The Tribunal emailed the parties and granted an extension until September 19, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.

4On September 13, 2016, a lawyer emailed the Tribunal to advise that he was representing the applicant. On September 20, 2016, the lawyer emailed the Tribunal to advise that he was no longer representing the applicant due to a conflict of interest. The applicant’s disclosure documentation and witness statements had not been filed with the Tribunal by the September 19, 2016 deadline.

5The respondent complied with its disclosure obligations by the September 19, 2016 deadline. It also filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) requesting particulars of a number of allegations in the Application. Although a party has 14 days to file a Response to a RFOP, the applicant did not respond to the RFOP.

6The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) on September 27, 2016 stating that it would be beneficial to hold a one hour case management conference call to discuss the applicant not complying with his disclosure obligations and the respondent’s RFOP. The parties were given a number of dates and times from which to advise the Tribunal about their availability and a deadline by which to confirm their availability.

7The respondent confirmed with the Tribunal its availability based upon those dates. The applicant did not.

8On September 27, 2016, at approximately 8:30 p.m., Shernett Martin emailed the Tribunal, from the applicant’s email address, requesting information about the CAD and the case management call. The Tribunal responded to this email the next morning, before 8:30 a.m., and requested that the applicant’s availability for the case management call be provided.

9The applicant did not provide his availability for the dates and times set out in the CAD or otherwise respond to the Tribunal’s email.

10Having not heard back from the applicant, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Case Management Conference Call on September 29, 2016, scheduling a case management conference call for October 3, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. (“the call”). Call-in instructions were set out in this notice. Consistent with the Tribunal’s standard wording, the parties were warned about the consequences of failing to participate in the call. For the applicant, he was warned that if he did not attend, his Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

11The respondent filed a letter on September 29, 2016 requesting that the Application be dismissed for abuse of process, for failure to respect the Tribunal’s order, and/or for abandonment.

12The call took place on October 3, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. The respondent, through its counsel, called in, but the applicant did not. Consistent with the Tribunal’s practice, the call was held down until 10:00 a.m. for the applicant to call in. I waited on the call, with my telephone muted and the respondent’s counsel, for the applicant to call in.

13The applicant did not call in or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not heard from the applicant, or someone on behalf of the applicant, since Shernett Martin’s September 27, 2016 email.

14At 10:00 a.m., when the applicant failed to participate in the call, his Application was dismissed as abandoned. This Decision confirms my oral ruling.

15Accordingly, the hearing dates scheduled for October 11 and 12, 2016 are cancelled.