Gillespie v. Mercedes Corp., 2017 HRTO 1012

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Gillespie Applicant

-and-

Mercedes Corp. Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: August 8, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1012 Indexed as: Gillespie v. Mercedes Corp.

APPEARANCES

Robert Gillespie, Applicant No one appearing

Mercedes Corp., Respondent Marcus Shantz, Representative

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2A Case Assessment Direction was sent to the parties on November 25, 2016, setting this Application down for a Summary Hearing. A Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the parties on March 1, 2017, setting the Summary Hearing for May 18, 2017, commencing at 9:30 a.m. The Notice contained the information necessary to connect to the summary hearing by conference call.

3The respondent appeared on the call at 9:30 a.m. as scheduled. The applicant did not appear. The Tribunal waited 30 minutes for the applicant to appear. The applicant failed to attend and failed to contact the Tribunal on the day of the hearing to explain his absence. A decision was made at that time to dismiss the application as abandoned.

4The following morning on May 19, 2017, the applicant emailed the Tribunal advising that he had been unable to connect to the call because the line was busy and requesting that the call be rescheduled. The respondent filed submissions opposing the request to reschedule the call. The respondent representative argued that he had no difficulty signing into the call twice: the first time at 9:30 a.m. when the call commenced and the second time at 10:00 a.m. as he was instructed to do by the Tribunal.

5The applicant received notice of the call. He did not notify the Tribunal that he was having any difficulty connecting to the call until the next day. Having failed to attend the hearing and make contact with the Tribunal on the day of the hearing to explain his absence, I made the decision to dismiss the Application. I am not persuaded by the applicant’s explanation that he acted with diligence to attend the call and therefore see no basis for not issuing my original decision in this matter.

6Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.