Weaver v. LAF Canada Company, 2016 HRTO 198

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Weaver Applicant

-and-

LAF Canada Company (dba LA FITNESS) Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: February 11, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 198 Indexed as: Weaver v. LAF Canada Company

Introduction

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 October 8, 2015.

2On October 22, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction directing that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the Application had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal made this decision because the issue raised by the applicant did not appear to fall under the Code. The Case Assessment Direction was sent to the applicant by regular mail and by courier at the address provided by him in the Application and was not returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable.

3On November 20, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties confirming that a summary hearing would take place by teleconference on February 11, 2016, commencing at 9:30 a.m. The Tribunal provided the telephone number and conference ID number to connect to the teleconference. The Notice of Summary Hearing was delivered to the applicant by regular mail at the address provided by him in the Application and was not returned as undeliverable.

4The respondent provided materials on the summary hearing to the applicant at the address provided by him in the Application. These materials were not returned to the respondent as undeliverable.

5I am satisfied that the address used by the Tribunal to give notice of the summary hearing was the correct address and as such, the applicant had notice of the summary hearing.

6The applicant was not in attendance at the commencement of the scheduled summary hearing. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. before proceeding.

7At 10:00 a.m. the applicant was not in attendance nor had the applicant communicated with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend.

DECISION

8In the circumstances, the Application was dismissed on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the Application.