Golbahar v. Technical Standards and Safety Authority, 2016 HRTO 653

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Behnam Golbahar

Applicant

-and-

Technical Standards and Safety Authority

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: May 13, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 653

Indexed as: Golbahar v. Technical Standards and Safety Authority

APPEARANCES

Behnam Golbahar, Applicant

No one appearing

Technical Standards and Safety Authority, Respondent

Kelly Hart and Tom Ayres, Counsel

1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect membership in a vocational association because of place of origin.

2The hearing of this matter was scheduled for May 13, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. At 11:09 p.m. on May 11, 2016, the applicant sent an e-mail message to the Tribunal stating that his plans for May 13, 2016 had changed for personal reasons and he could not attend the hearing. The Tribunal’s Registrar responded to the applicant by e-mail at 8:37 a.m. on May 12, 2016. The Registrar noted that the applicant did not copy the Respondent on his e-mail message in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. The Registrar reminded the applicant to copy the Respondent on all correspondence sent to the Tribunal. The Registrar also advised the applicant as follows:

You are reminded that the HRTO will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the HRTO will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.

A copy of your email has been forwarded to the assigned Vice-Chair for review.

3The applicant did not communicate with the Tribunal further; therefore, the Registrar sent the applicant the following message by e-mail on May 12, 2016 at 3:38 p.m.:

Further to the earlier email below from the HRTO to the Applicant, the Vice Chair has deemed that the applicant has not made a proper adjournment request in accordance to the HRTO’s process. The only way the HRTO can consider an adjournment request is if the Applicant can provide detailed reasons for the request.

So therefore, at this point, the hearing will be proceeding tomorrow as scheduled and the parties are expected to appear.

4The applicant did not respond to the Registrar’s message and the hearing was not adjourned. The applicant did not attend the hearing. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. until proceeding with the hearing. The respondent submitted that the Tribunal should dismiss the Application as abandoned.

5I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing. The Tribunal sent the Notice of Summary Hearing (the “Notice”) to the address the applicant has used in correspondence with the Tribunal. The applicant’s e-mail correspondence clearly indicates that he was aware that the hearing of his Application was schedule on May 13, 2016. The Notice set out the potential consequences of failing to attend the hearing, which included that the Tribunal may “dismiss the Application as abandoned” if the applicant does not attend. Accordingly, the applicant knew or ought to have known that the Application could be dismissed if he failed to attend the summary hearing.

6In view of the applicant’s non-attendance, the Application is hereby dismissed as abandoned.