Fuller v. Saftic, 2017 HRTO 987

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Clayton Fuller Applicant

-and-

John Saftic Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: August 2, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 987 Indexed as: Fuller v. Saftic

APPEARANCES

John Saftic, Respondent

Marie Abraham, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2On May 1, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties confirming that a summary hearing of the Application was scheduled to take place by teleconference on August 2, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. The Notice was delivered to the applicant at the mailing address and e-mail address he provided in his latest correspondence with the Tribunal dated September 29, 2016. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the summary hearing.

3The summary hearing was convened by teleconference on the scheduled date and time. The applicant did not call into the summary hearing at 9:30 p.m. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10 a.m. before proceeding.

4At 10 a.m., the applicant had still not called into the summary hearing, nor had he communicated with the Tribunal to advise that he was unable to take part in the summary hearing.

5I asked the respondent's counsel for her submissions on the appropriate next steps in the circumstances. She submitted that the Application should be dismissed as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to take part in the summary hearing.

6I note that the applicant has filed many applications with this Tribunal, almost all of which have been dismissed as abandoned. See Fuller v. North Bay Regional Hospital, 2017 HRTO 413; Fuller v. Children's Aid Society of the District of Nipissing/ Parry Sound, 2017 HRTO 210; Fuller v. Macpharlin, 2016 HRTO 1133; Fuller v. St. Joseph's Hospital, 2016 HRTO 1124; Fuller v. North Bay Police Services, 2016 HRTO 1123; and Fuller v. Children's Aid Society of the District of Nipissing/Parry Sound, 2017 HRTO 210. The applicant has also filed two other applications that have been dismissed on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the applications were either untimely or did not identify acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. See Fuller v. Legal Aid Ontario, 2016 HRTO 1141, and Fuller v. Medi Mart Clinic, 2016 HRTO 1132.

7If the applicant continues to file applications without an apparent intention to pursue them or applications that plainly and obviously fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Code, the Tribunal may seek submissions on whether it should declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

ORDER

8In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for his failure to attend the summary hearing, I dismissed the Application orally at the summary hearing. This Decision confirms that the Application is dismissed as abandoned.