Moes v. The Council of Rehoboth United Reform Church of Hamilton, 2016 HRTO 1375

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Henry Moes Applicant

-and-

The Council of Rehoboth United Reform Church of Hamilton Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: October 25, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1375 Indexed as: Moes v. The Council of Rehoboth United Reform Church of Hamilton

APPEARANCES

Henry Moes, Applicant No one appearing

The Council of Rehoboth United Reformed Church of Hamilton, Respondent Sudevi Mukherjee-Gothi, Counsel

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 December 4, 2015. The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction on March 4, 2015 indicating that it would hold a preliminary hearing to determine whether the Application should be dismissed for delay.

2On July 12, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Preliminary Hearing to the parties alerting the parties to that fact that a preliminary hearing of the Application was scheduled for August 29, 2016. The respondent was unable to attend on that day and requested an adjournment in a letter dated July 22, 2016.

3Counsel for the respondent advised that she had been in contact with the applicant, who at the time was in the Philippines, and both parties would be able to attend a preliminary hearing on October 13, 2016. At the hearing, counsel provided a copy of the email correspondence from the applicant relating to this period.

4A Notice of Preliminary Hearing (Rescheduled) was sent on July 27, 2016 advising the parties that the hearing would take place at the Mohawk Residence & Conference Centre, 245 Fennell Ave. W., Hamilton on October 13, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. The Notice was mailed to the applicant at the address provided by him to the Tribunal, and was not returned as undeliverable. It was also sent by email.

5The applicant did not attend the hearing at the commencement of it. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 11:00 a.m. before proceeding. At 11:00 a.m. the applicant was still not in attendance. There was no further communication from the applicant. The respondent provided submissions concerning what might constitute the last incident of alleged discrimination and then the hearing was adjourned.

6In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed on the basis that the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application. In the alternative, I would dismiss it on the basis of delay.