HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Robin Ellis
Applicant
-and-
Home Outfitters – A Division of Hudson’s Bay Company
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha
Indexed as: Ellis v. Home Outfitters
APPEARANCES:
Robin Ellis, Applicant ) Did not appear
Home Outfitters – A Division of Hudson’s ) Andrew J. McCreary, Counsel
Bay Company, Respondent )
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on April 20, 2009 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. The respondent filed a Response, dated February 22, 2010, denying the allegations.
2In an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 974, dated May 4, 2010, I ruled that the Application is not barred by section 34(11).
3The respondent also sought dismissal of the Application on the basis that the substance of the Application has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding within the meaning of section 45.1. Alternatively, the respondent sought deferral pending the outcome in the civil matter. A hearing was scheduled for July 13, 2010 to give the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions on these preliminary issues.
4The Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing by regular mail on May 7, 2010. It was sent to the mailing address provided by the applicant and to which all correspondence related to the Application has previously been sent. An Amended Notice was also sent to an updated address provided by the applicant. Neither Notice was returned as undeliverable. The Notice informed all parties that the Tribunal had scheduled a preliminary, half-day hearing on July 13, 2010 at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, at 160 Elgin Street, Ottawa, commencing at 10:00 a.m.
5I am satisfied that the applicant had proper notice of the hearing.
6The respondent’s counsel attended the hearing at the date, time, and place that was set out in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing. After waiting 30 minutes, I determined that the applicant had failed to appear.
7I invited submissions from the respondent on how I should deal with the applicant’s failure to appear. The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application as abandoned. In support of this request, the respondent relied on the fact that there is every reason to assume the applicant was properly notified of the proceedings. She has counsel in her civil suit and has demonstrated an ability to engage in litigation as an unrepresented applicant in these proceedings. Counsel pointed me to the decision of the Employment Standards Officer, in which it was noted that the applicant had failed to provide requested information in that proceeding. It is also worth noting that the applicant failed to file a Reply in these proceedings, despite the fact that the respondent raised new allegations going to the merits of the case. Additionally, the applicant did not file a Response to the respondent’s Request for Order During Proceedings.
8Having considered the respondent’s request, I ruled orally that the Application is dismissed as abandoned, with written reasons to follow.
9The applicant commenced a legal proceeding when she filed this Application with the Tribunal. It is the applicant’s responsibility to participate in this proceeding by taking the necessary steps to pursue it, including attending the scheduled hearing dates.
10Furthermore, filing an application engages the use of the Tribunal’s resources in the processing of the matter. Filing an application also results in the respondent having to invest resources and time to respond to the application and prepare for a hearing. For these reasons, an application must be treated seriously. It is reasonable for the Tribunal to expect applicants to demonstrate their commitment to their obligations under the process.
11Given the applicant’s abandonment, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Ottawa, this 14th day of July, 2010.
“Signed by”
Faisal Bhabha
Vice-chair