HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Claudette Peyton
Applicant
-and-
Dollarama L.P.
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
Indexed as: Peyton v. Dollarama
appearances BY
Claudette Peyton, Applicant ) No one appearing
Dollarama L.P., Respondent ) Roslyn McGilvery, Counsel, and ) Anthony Kocsis, Representative
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on May 8, 2009.
2The Tribunal sent the parties a Confirmation of Hearing notice by regular mail on February 1, 2010. The notice informed the parties that the Tribunal had scheduled a hearing of the Application on May 20, 2010 at 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, commencing at 9:30 AM. At the hearing, I dismissed the Application with written reasons to follow. The following are my reasons.
3Following the Tribunal’s delivery of the Confirmation of Hearing notice to the parties, the respondent complied with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure on disclosure of documents and witnesses, but the applicant did not.
4The respondent’s representative sent the Tribunal a letter on May 17, 2010, which requested that the May 20 hearing date be adjourned for 60 days because he did not believe that the applicant would attend the hearing. He stated that his belief was based on the fact that she had failed to return several voicemail messages that he had left for her with respect to settling the case, and she had not disclosed any documents or a witness list.
5The Tribunal sent the parties an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1129, by e-mail on May 19, 2010, which denied the respondent’s request for an adjournment of the hearing, and informed them that if the applicant did not attend the hearing on May 20, the Tribunal may dismiss her Application as abandoned.
6A Tribunal staff person called the applicant on May 19, 2010 because the e-mail to her bounced back. The staff person read the Interim Decision to her and sent it to her at an alternate e-mail address. The applicant informed the staff person that she would not be coming to the hearing because the respondent’s representative did not call her back about settling the case, and she did not want put her witness through a hearing. The staff person informed the applicant that the Tribunal may dismiss her Application if she did not appear at the hearing. The applicant then stated that she needed to consult with legal counsel, and wanted an adjournment of the hearing. The staff person directed the applicant to file a written request and provided her with the Tribunal’s e-mail address.
7The respondent attended the hearing at the date, time and place that was set out in the Confirmation of Hearing notice, but the applicant did not appear, and she did not file a written request for an adjournment of the hearing.
8I commenced the hearing at 10:00 AM and invited submissions from the respondent’s counsel on how I should deal with the applicant’s failure to appear at the hearing.
9The respondent’s counsel requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that the applicant received notice of the hearing, but refused to attend. Specifically, she shut down settlement discussions between the parties in March 2010, failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules on disclosure of documents and witnesses, and informed a Tribunal staff person on May 19 that she would not be coming to the hearing.
10Based on the above facts, I am satisfied that the applicant was aware that the hearing was scheduled for May 20, 2010, but decided not to attend. Furthermore, even if the applicant had filed a written request to adjourn the hearing in order to consult with legal counsel, I would have denied the request because the applicant has had more than one year to consult with legal counsel.
11The applicant commenced a legal proceeding when she filed her Application with the Tribunal. It is the applicant’s responsibility to attend the hearing and provide evidence in support of the allegations raised in the Application. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal is unable to proceed with the Application and there is no onus or responsibility on the respondent to provide evidence in response to allegations.
12Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of May, 2010.
”signed by”____________
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair