Jeffrey Eamon v. Eckel Industries of Canada Ltd., 2016 HRTO 567

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jeffrey Eamon

Applicant

-and-

Eckel Industries of Canada Ltd.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana

Date: April 29, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 567

Indexed as: Eamon v. Eckel Industries of Canada Ltd.

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 May 27, 2015.

2On December 3, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing (the “Notice”) to the parties confirming that the hearing of the Application would take place on April 28 and 29, 2016, commencing at 9:30 a.m. at the Landlord and Tenant Board in Ottawa. The Notice was mailed to the applicant at the last address provided by the applicant to the Tribunal.

3The applicant was not in attendance at the commencement of the scheduled hearing. The applicant contacted the Tribunal in Toronto after the scheduled commencement of the hearing and asked that the hearing be postponed until later in the day. He indicated that he had not received the notice of hearing by email. He was advised that he would be granted an additional 30 minutes to attend and that the hearing would begin at 10:30 a.m.

4At 10:30, the applicant was still not in attendance and I sought submissions from the respondent with respect to whether the Tribunal should dismiss the application as abandoned. The respondent made submissions to the Tribunal in support of its position that the application should be dismissed as abandoned. After considering those submissions I made an oral ruling at the hearing dismissing the application as abandoned with written reasons to follow. These are my reasons for that decision.

5I was satisfied that the applicant received notice of the hearing. The applicant advised the Tribunal on the morning of the hearing that he did not receive the notice of hearing by email. While the Tribunal sent the Notice by regular mail only, it was not returned as undeliverable, and the applicant subsequently received multiple confirmations of the hearing dates since the Notice was sent out:

i. On March 24, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) that was sent to the applicant by both regular mail and email. The CAD noted the scheduled hearing dates at paragraph [1] and directed the parties to comply with their disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17;

ii. On April 26, 2016, I issued an Interim Decision that was sent by regular mail and email denying the respondent’s request for an adjournment and confirming that the hearing would proceed as scheduled; and

iii. Prior to the issuance of that decision, on April 25, 2016, the Registrar informed the parties by email that the hearing would proceed as scheduled and that written reasons would follow.

6The applicant therefore received and responded to multiple communications confirming the hearing dates. The applicant complied with the directions set out in the CAD and sent his materials on April 4, 2016. In his materials he explicitly confirms that he received the Tribunal’s CAD, which included reference to the hearing dates: “I am in receipt of an Email indicating I am to submit a list of witnesses, documents and a brief of statements by April 4^th”.

7On the day before the hearing, April 27, 2016, the applicant filed a Form 11 response to the respondent’s April 18, 2016 request for an adjournment. In his Form 11 response, the applicant notes the following: “The tribunal has Decided already that the order will not be accepted and the tribunal will Proceeding will be schedualled [sic] for April 28 and 29 2016.” He also indicates that “I will follow the Instructions of the tribunal and prepare for the Proceeding on 28 and 29 of April 2016”.

8It is evident the applicant received repeated communications from the Tribunal confirming the hearing dates, the most recent of which were sent by email and by regular mail. The applicant also confirmed through his Form 11 response on April 27, 2016 that he would be in attendance at the hearing.

9An application starts a legal proceeding which carries with it serious consequences for all parties involved. All parties are entitled to an expeditious resolution of matters before this Tribunal. The respondent traveled from outside of Ottawa to be present at the hearing and arranged for its witness to be present. The applicant was also afforded an additional hour to attend the hearing, which is a further 30 minutes beyond the Tribunal’s practice of waiting 30 minutes past the scheduled hearing time.

10In the circumstances, I dismissed the Application as abandoned.