Nahirny v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, 2016 HRTO 648

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John Nahirny

Applicant

-and-

Liquor Control Board of Ontario and Ron Scarcello

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: May 13, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 648

Indexed as: Nahirny v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario

1This case was scheduled for hearing on June 27 and 28, 2016. The respondent made a timely request to re-schedule the hearing. In their request to re-schedule, the respondent indicated that they were available on July 14 and 15 and September 15 and 16, 2016.

2In correspondence dated March 8, 2016 the Tribunal granted the timely request to reschedule. The Tribunal also indicated that it was available on the alternate dates provided by the respondents. The applicant was directed to confirm his availability on those dates or provide alternative dates by March 18, 2016.

3The applicant did not respond to this direction.

4On March 30, 2016 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant again. The Tribunal reminded the applicant of the March 8, 2016 correspondence above. The Tribunal directed that the applicant confirm his intentions to proceed further with this Application and if he intended to proceed further the applicant was directed to respond to the March 8, 2016 letter. The Tribunal reminded the applicant about Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which provides:

The Tribunal may finally determine an Application without further notice to any person who cannot be contacted by the Tribunal according to the contact information provided to the Tribunal by that person.

5The applicant was directed to respond to the Tribunal’s Directions by April 11, 2016 failing which the Tribunal may deem the Application to be abandoned.

6The applicant has not complied with the Directions above.

7However on April 6, 2016 the applicant did file a Request for Order During Proceeding (Request). The respondents were directed that they need not respond to the Request unless directed to do so.

8In Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 543 issued on April 25, 2016 the applicant’s Request was dismissed.

9The applicant was also directed as follows:

a. The applicant will respond to the Tribunal’s correspondence dated March 8 and March 30, 2016 by May 2, 2016 failing which this Application will be dismissed as abandoned. For the sake of clarity the applicant must confirm his availability on the dates provided or provide alternative dates for the hearing of this case.

10As of this writing the applicant has not complied with the various Directions above that he confirm his availability to re-schedule this hearing. He has not otherwise communicated with the Tribunal in any way. In all of the circumstances the applicant is deemed to have abanonded the Application and it is dismissed.