Alexander Jovic v. The Newark Group-Newark Paperboard Products, 2016 HRTO 165

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alexander Jovic

Applicant

-and-

The Newark Group-Newark Paperboard Products, Manuel Silva, Mark Klein and Frank Papa

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: February 4, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 165

Indexed as: Jovic v. The Newark Group-Newark Paperboard Products

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 February 10 and 11, 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, and among other things, 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 within 21 days of the date of the Notice of Hearing; 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 29, 2015 (i.e. 45 days before the first scheduled day of hearing).

3The applicant did not provide the Tribunal with the materials required under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure by December 29, 2015.

4Accordingly, in a January 26, 2016 Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide the required materials to the respondents and the Tribunal by no later than February 2, 2016.

5In 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 February 2, 2016, the applicant must deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal: (1) the documents, including any tape recorded evidence, he intends to rely upon at the hearing, (2) a list of his witnesses and (3) a brief statement describing what his witnesses will say when they testify.

The applicant is reminded that he must also submit a witness statement for himself, assuming he intends to testify at the hearing. However, if the applicant only intends to testify about the facts already contained in his Application and Reply, it is sufficient for him to confirm this in writing by February 2, 2016.

If the applicant has not complied with these directions by February 2, 2016, or communicated with the Tribunal at all, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

6It is now 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 respondents’ January 21 and 26, 2016 letters in which they seek an adjournment of the hearing dates, stating an inability to prepare properly for the hearing, absent the disclosure required of the applicant. On January 26, 2016, the Tribunal also wrote to the applicant advising him that unless he provided his position with regard to the respondents’ adjournment request by 3 pm on February 2, 2016, his Application may be dismissed as abandoned. The applicant has not responded to the January 26, 2016 email from the Tribunal.

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 February 10 and 11, 2016 hearing dates are cancelled.