W.M. v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2016 HRTO 142

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

W.M. Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General and Daniel Johnson

-and-

Toronto District School Board

-and-

Ryerson University and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: February 1, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 142 Indexed as: W.M. v. Ontario (Attorney General)

APPEARANCES

W.M., Applicant No one appearing

Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, Respondents Don Pyper, Counsel

Ryerson University, Respondent Giselle Basanta, Counsel

Toronto District School Board, Respondent Gail Geronimo, Counsel

Daniel Johnson, Respondent Alexandra Lev-Farrell, Counsel

1These Applications allege reprisal and discrimination with respect to services because of age, citizenship, and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The purpose of this decision is to provide reasons for the dismissal of the Applications.

Background

2The Tribunal held a summary hearing on October 5, 2015, at which all parties attended, but it was adjourned. (See 2015 HRTO 1319).

3On November 3, 2015, the Tribunal issued a new Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties confirming that the new date of the summary hearing of the Applications would take place on January 29, 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. It was the address used to deliver the Notice of the previous summary hearing at which the applicant did appear.

4I also note that the applicant had engaged in email communications with the other parties and Tribunal staff confirming the availability for the January 29, 2016 summary hearing.

The Summary Hearing

5The applicant was not in attendance at the commencement of the scheduled summary hearing on January 29, 2016. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. before proceeding.

6At 10:00 a.m. the applicant was still not in attendance nor had the applicant communicated with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend. The respondents requested that the Applications be dismissed as abandoned.

7In the circumstances where I was satisfied that the applicant had notice of the summary hearing, the Applications were dismissed on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the Application.

Maintaining Anonymity

8Given there was an issue raised in the Applications that engages the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1, I am maintaining the anonymity of the applicant.

Order

9The Applications are dismissed.