Hartsman v. Toronto (City), 2016 HRTO 15

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul Hartsman Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: January 11, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 15 Indexed as: Hartsman v. Toronto (City)

1This is an Application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. The Application is scheduled to be heard on January 22, 2016.

2On August 20, 2015, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Hearing directing them to take certain steps in advance of the hearing. In particular, the Notice of Hearing directed the parties to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure by providing one another with copies of their arguably relevant documents by September 10, 2015, and by exchanging with one another and filing with the Tribunal the documents they intended to rely upon at the hearing, a list of their witnesses and a summary of their witnesses’ anticipated evidence by no later than December 8, 2015.

3The respondent provided its arguably relevant documents to the applicant on September 9, 2015. The applicant did not provide his documents to the respondent.

4The respondent provided its hearing documents to the applicant and the Tribunal on December 7 and December 8, 2015 respectively. The applicant did not provide his hearing documents.

5In a Case Assessment Direction dated December 21, 2015 (“CAD”), the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide his hearing documents to the respondent and the Tribunal by no later than January 4, 2016. In its CAD, the Tribunal warned the applicant that there were serious consequences for the case if he did not comply with the Tribunal’s directions. In particular, the Tribunal’s CAD contained the following directions to the applicant:

By no later than January 4, 2016, the applicant must deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal the documents he intends to rely upon at the hearing, a list of his witnesses and a brief statement describing what his witnesses will say when they testify. If the applicant has not complied with this direction by January 4, 2016, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant is reminded that he must also submit a witness statement for himself. However, if the applicant only intends to testify about the facts already contained in his Application, it is sufficient for him to confirm this in writing by January 4, 2016.

If the applicant does not communicate with the Tribunal at all by January 4, 2016, his case may be dismissed as abandoned.

6It is now one week past the applicant’s deadline for complying with the Tribunal’s directions and the applicant has not filed the required materials with the Tribunal, nor has he communicated with the Tribunal.

7In addition, the applicant has not responded to the respondent’s January 5, 2016 letter, seeking to have the Application dismissed as abandoned on the basis of the applicant’s failure to comply with the directions in the Tribunal’s December 21, 2015 CAD.

8In the circumstances, it appears that the applicant has abandoned the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

ORDER

9The Application is dismissed as abandoned and the January 22, 2016 hearing date is cancelled.