Powell v. Halton (Regional Municipality), 2010 HRTO 1858

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Veronica Powell Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of Halton Respondent

• and-

Ontario Public Service Employees Union Intervenor

case resolution conference DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: September 10, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1858 Indexed as: Powell v. Halton (Regional Municipality)

APPEARANCES

) Veronica Powell, Applicant ) No one appeared ) ) Regional Municipality of Halton, ) Meghan Ferguson, Counsel Respondent ) ) ) Ontario Public Service Employee ) Eric O’ Brien, Counsel Union, Intervenor )

1The applicant filed a complaint dated February 4, 2008 (the “Complaint”) with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) alleging a breach of the Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) by the respondent. The applicant abandoned the Complaint and filed an application (the “Application”) with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) pursuant to s. 53(5) of Part VI of the Code.

2A hearing in this matter was scheduled for September 9, 2010. The Tribunal sent the applicant’s representative a Confirmation of Hearing notice by regular mail on April 14, 2010. The notice informed all parties that the Tribunal had scheduled a hearing of the Application on September 9, 2010 at 180 Dundas Street, Toronto, commencing at 9:30 a.m.

3I am satisfied that the applicant had proper notice of the hearing, by notice to her representative.

4The applicant's representative wrote to the Tribunal on September 8, 2010 seeking an adjournment on the basis that he had not been able to contact the applicant for some time.

5The respondent objected to the request and advised that if the applicant failed to attend they would be seeking dismissal of the Application.

6On September 8, 2010 the Tribunal advised the parties by email that the hearing would proceed as scheduled and that if the applicant failed to attend the Tribunal would hear the respondent’s request for dismissal.

7On September 9, 2010 the intervenor, the respondent, the respondent’s representative and several witnesses attended the hearing. The applicant did not appear, nor did the applicant's representative.

8The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application as abandoned.

9I dismissed the application as abandoned. The applicant commenced a legal proceeding when she filed her 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 hearing scheduled to consider the allegations raised in the Application. It is also her responsibility to keep her representative advised about her whereabouts and intentions with respect to the Application.

10Filing an application engages the use of the Tribunal’s administrative, mediation, and adjudicative resources in the processing of the matter. It also results in the respondent having to devote resources and time to respond to an application and prepare for a hearing. An application thus ought not be initiated lightly, and it is reasonable for the Tribunal to expect applicants to demonstrate their commitment to their obligations under the process.

11The Tribunal finds the Application abandoned and dismisses it.