Danielle McConnell v. Unique Pool Supplies Ltd. and Rod Cotter, 2010 HRTO 1238

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Danielle McConnell

Applicant

-and-

Unique Pool Supplies Ltd. and Rod Cotter

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: June 2, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1238

Indexed as: McConnell v. Unique Pool Supplies

1The applicant filed this Application on May 12, 2009, under s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. The applicant alleges that her employment was terminated because she was pregnant. The respondents deny the allegations and maintain that the applicant was terminated because she lied about her availability for work.

2In an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 434, dated February 25, 2010 the Tribunal ordered that a hearing be held to deal with the respondents’ request for early dismissal of the Application under s. 45.1 based on an Employment Standards Officer’s decision.

3A Notice of Hearing by Conference Call was sent to the parties on March 3, 2010, scheduling this matter for a two-hour preliminary hearing on June 1, 2010. There is every indication that the parties received notice of the hearing date. No requests were made to adjourn or re-schedule.

4On June 1, 2010, the respondents and Vice-chair dialled-in to the conference call. The applicant did not attend. After waiting on-line for 15 minutes, the Tribunal heard submissions from the respondents on how to proceed. They requested that the Application be dismissed as abandoned. In support of their request, they cited previous dealings with the applicant and noted the prejudice they had suffered in preparing for and attending the hearing.

5Upon review of the Tribunal file, it appears the applicant wrote to the Registrar on February 24, 2010, though she failed to copy the respondents, requesting that the Application be withdrawn and apologizing for any inconvenience. The Tribunal sought to obtain a Form 9, required to withdraw an Application, but apparently none was received.

6In the light of the applicant’s previous correspondence, her non-attendance at the preliminary hearing, and the respondents’ request for dismissal, it is clear that the parties are all in agreement not to proceed with the Application. It is accordingly dismissed.