Patterson v. Tara Breckenridge Pharmacy Ltd., 2009 HRTO 1436

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Birgitt Patterson

Applicant

-and-

Tara Breckenridge Pharmacy Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: September 9, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1436

Indexed as: Patterson v. Tara Breckenridge Pharmacy

1This is an Application filed on July 28, 2008 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”).

2In this Application, the parties attended for a mediation session with the Tribunal on December 8, 2008, which did not result in a settlement. The Application was scheduled for a hearing for May 7 and 8, 2009. The applicant did not attend at the hearing, although the respondent appeared with counsel and three witnesses. In a Case Assessment Direction issued on the same day, the Vice-chair of the Tribunal assigned to the hearing indicated that the applicant’s sister had indicated that the applicant was ill, and requested an adjournment. The respondent consented to the adjournment and as the parties also expressed a willingness to attend at further mediation, another mediation session was scheduled for August 21, 2009.

3The respondent attended at the mediation, with counsel. The applicant did not, and has not communicated with the Tribunal.

4The respondent has requested that the Application be dismissed, based on the history of the matter.

5Applications before the Tribunal are legal proceedings. Filing an application engages the use of the Tribunal’s administrative, mediation and adjudicative resources in the processing of the matter. It also results in respondents having to devote their own resources and time to respond to an application. An application ought not to be initiated lightly, and it is reasonable for the Tribunal to expect applicants to demonstrate their commitment to their obligations under the process.

6The respondents are understandably frustrated by the number of steps they have taken in a fruitless effort to conclude this matter. In the circumstances, however, it is not appropriate to consider the respondent’s request to dismiss the Application without permitting the applicant an opportunity to respond. I therefore direct the applicant to respond to the respondent’s request to dismiss dated August 28, 2009, and to provide an explanation for her failure to attend at the mediation on August 21, 2009. The applicant’s Response must be delivered to the respondent and filed with the Tribunal by September 23, 2009.

7If the Tribunal does not receive anything from the applicant by that date, it may treat the Application as abandoned and dismiss it.