HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Petros (Peter) Mina
Applicant
-and-
Millenium Process Group Inc.
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jacek Janczur
Indexed as: Mina v. Millenium Process Group
APPEARANCES
) Petros (Peter) Mina, Applicant ) No one appearing ) ) Millenium Process Group Inc., Respondent ) Jit Lahiry, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), in which the applicant alleges that the respondent infringed his rights under the Code.
2The Application was filed beyond the one year time limit imposed by s. 34 of the Code.
3Pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction dated June 8, 2017, the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be held by conference call in order to deal with the applicant’s delay in filing his Application.
4On June 15, 2017 a Notice of Preliminary Hearing was sent to the parties scheduling the Preliminary Hearing for August 14, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.
5According to the applicant, the delay in filing his Application was caused by a number of medical conditions which he has. When the preliminary hearing was scheduled, the applicant wrote the Tribunal stating that the same conditions which caused the delay in filing the Application also made oral communication difficult. As a result, by means of a Case Assessment Direction dated July 10, 2017, the Tribunal converted the preliminary hearing from a conference call to an in person hearing. The Tribunal also directed the applicant to arrange to have the health care professionals that had authored the reports on which he relied to be available by telephone.
6The applicant then advised the Tribunal that an in person hearing was also not appropriate as his difficulty with oral communication would also be engaged. He asked that the matter be dealt with by means of written submissions.
7By means of a Case Assessment Direction dated July 21, 2017, the Tribunal asked the applicant to confirm his waiver of the right to make oral submissions within seven days failing which the in person preliminary hearing would proceed as scheduled. The Tribunal directed the applicant to file medical evidence within fourteen days if he was unable to participate at the in person hearing.
8There followed numerous communications from the applicant’s representative taking issue with the manner of proceeding, although nothing was filed with the Tribunal in support of the applicant’s claim that he was medically incapable of participating at an in person hearing. The applicant wrote and said that he no longer had representation and that he could not be absent from work without providing one week’s notice even though the preliminary hearing had been scheduled nearly two months previously.
9On August 14, 2017, the applicant sent an e-mail to the Tribunal advising that he would not be participating in the conference call.
10The call proceeded as scheduled and the respondent dialed into the call. The applicant did not attend. The Tribunal waited until 2:00 p.m. in the event that the applicant should change his mind and decide to participate in the call.
11By 2:00 p.m. the applicant had still not attended on the call.
12There is no evidence to support the applicant’s claim he was unable to participate in the scheduled hearing for medical reasons. Not only did the applicant not file medical evidence as directed to by the Tribunal, but on the eve of the hearing he sought to rely on a completely unrelated reason for non-attendance. Even on the applicant’s own account this unrelated reason, a purported scheduling conflict with his work, only arose because he failed to request time off work in a timely manner. Finally, he advised that he would not participate. I find that the applicant abandoned his application.
ORDER
13The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 24^th^ day of August, 2017.
“Signed by”
Jacek Janczur
Vice-chair