Ramirez v. Rockwell Automation Canada Ltd., 2025 ONSC 1408
An application was filed in 2018 and stayed pending a related proceeding before WSIAT.
In October 2023, the application was dismissed as abandoned on the basis that the applicant had failed to respond to a June 2022 inquiry from the Tribunal about the status of the WSIAT matter. A reconsideration application was dismissed despite submissions from the applicant that the June email had not been received and relying on the fact that the applicant had continued to otherwise communicate with the HRTO in 2022.
In its reconsideration decision, the HRTO found that the June email had been sent to the correct address and was deemed to be received pursuant to Rule 1.22(d). The decision found that the applicant could not contradict the deeming provision.
In quashing the HRTO decisions, the Court noted that failure to respond to one email from the Tribunal could not reasonably be taken as evidence of abandonment when the applicant had otherwise been engaged in the process. The Court held that a dismissal for abandonment “must include processes for a litigant to contest a dismissal on a complete record on the merits of whether the litigant abandoned or should be deemed to have abandoned a proceeding”.