HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Vincent Anthony
Applicant
-and-
Innsys Inc., Prapaharan Gunapalasingam and Wisvanathan Selliah
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Anthony v. Innsys Inc.
1A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled for August 5, 2016 in Toronto. This Decision explains why this hearing date is cancelled and the Application dismissed.
2This case has had a somewhat troubled procedural history.
3This Application was originally scheduled to be heard by the Tribunal on January 15, 2016. On the morning of the scheduled hearing, at 8:22 a.m., the Tribunal received an email from the applicant which simply stated: “I request the adjournment of the hearing because of ill health.” The applicant’s email was not copied to the respondents, and the Tribunal directed the applicant to do so immediately and confirm with the Tribunal that he had done so. The Tribunal did not hear further from the applicant.
4At the outset of the hearing at 9:30 a.m. on January 15, 2016, the respondents were in attendance at the hearing, but the applicant was not. The applicant was still not in attendance at 10:00 a.m. The Tribunal read the applicant’s adjournment request to the respondents and provided them with an opportunity to make submissions in response. Aside from expressing skepticism with respect to the applicant’s stated reason for his adjournment request, the respondents did not clearly oppose the request. In the circumstances, the hearing was adjourned and the Tribunal indicated that it would issue further directions to the parties in writing.
5On February 8, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Dirction (“CAD”). In the CAD, the Tribunal noted that it had also issued an earlier CAD dated December 18, 2015, addressing the applicant’s apparent failure to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure regarding pre-hearing disclosure of documents. The Tribunal also indicated that the applicant wrote to the Tribunal by email on December 27 and 31, 2015, but did not copy the respondents, as is required by Rule 1.12 of the Tribunal’s Rules. In emails dated December 30, 2015, and January 4, 2016, the Tribunal had advised the applicant that he was required to copy the respondents on his correspondence with the Tribunal, but that there was no indication that the applicant had done so.
6In a further CAD issued on February 8, 2016 the Tribunal directed as follows:
In light of the applicant’s history, detailed above, of failing to comply with the Tribunal’s directions, and the last minute nature of his adjournment request, I believe the following directions are necessary to ensure the fair, just and expeditious resolution of this matter. The applicant must advise the Tribunal and the respondents if he wishes to proceed with this Application, by no later than February 16, 2016. If the applicant wishes to proceed with this Application, he must also provide the Tribunal and the respondents with medical documentation in support of the adjournment request he made by email the morning of January 15, 2016, by no later than February 16, 2016. If the applicant cannot provide documentation in support of the reason he gave for requesting the adjournment, then he should provide submissions by February 16, 2016 on why the Application should not be dismissed as an abuse of process. The respondents shall have 7 days after receiving the applicant’s submissions to provide argument in response.
If the Tribunal does not hear from the applicant by February 16, 2016, this Application may be dismissed as abandoned. Alternatively the Tribunal may consider and determine the issue of abuse of process.
7On February 15, 2016, the Tribunal received submissions from the applicant stating, in part, that he had no intention to abuse the process and that the primary reason he did not attend the hearing on January 15, 2016 was because he had a nose bleed and was severely affected. Again, the applicant did not copy the respondents on his submissions.
8On February 17, 2016, the Tribunal provided a copy of the applicant’s February 15, 2016 submissions to the respondents, and indicated that the respondents may file submissions in response, within 7 days, as directed in the Tribunal’s February 8, 2016 CAD. The respondents did not oppose the applicant’s request.
9In a CAD issued on March 3, 2016 the applicant’s adjournment request was granted.
10As indicated on December 18, 2015 the Tribunal issued a CAD directing that the applicant deliver and file his hearing materials. He did not do so prior to the first scheduled days of hearing in this case and has not done so since.
11In a new Notice of Hearing issued on April 7, 2016 the Tribunal notified the parties that, under Rules 16 and 17 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure, the parties were obliged to provide the following things to one another and to the Tribunal by no later than June 21, 2016:
a. a list of the witnesses they intend to call at the hearing of the Application;
b. witness statements describing what the witnesses will say when they testify; and
c. copies of the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing.
12The applicant did not comply with these Directions.
13In a further CAD issued on July 5, 2016 the applicant was again alerted to the fact that he has failed to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure regarding pre-hearing disclosure of witnesses.
14The Tribunal made the following directions at that time:
By no later than July 12, 2016, the applicant must deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal a list of his witnesses and a statement describing what his witnesses will say when they testify as well as any documents he intends to rely upon at the hearing.
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 the Application, it is sufficient for him to confirm this in writing by July 12, 2016.
Failure to comply with these Directions may result in the Application being dismissed as abandoned..
15The applicant has again not complied with the Tribunal’s Directions and has not communicated with the Tribunal in any way.
16I find that the applicant has abandoned this Application and it is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 15^th^ day of July, 2016.
“Signed By”
David Muir
Vice-chair