Dann v. Collins, 2010 HRTO 2053

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary-Jane Dann Applicant

-and-

Chad Collins Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Mary-Jane Dann Applicant

-and-

Kim Coombs Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: October 7, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2053 Indexed as: Dann v. Collins

APPEARANCES BY:

Mary-Jane Dann, Applicant ) No one appearing Chad Collins, Respondent ) Byrdena MacNeil, Counsel Kim Coombs, Respondent ) Byrdena MacNeil, Counsel

1The applicant filed two Applications with the Tribunal on August 19, 2008 pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination and reprisal and/or threat of reprisal in the areas of housing, goods, services and facilities on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation and receipt of public assistance.

2Chad Collins is the respondent in Tribunal file 2008-00232-I (the “Collins file”). Kim Coombs if the respondent in Tribunal file 2008-00233-I (the “Coombs file”).

3On October 13, 2009 a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) was issued by the Tribunal scheduling a hearing on the following preliminary issues:

• Whether the Applications should be heard together;
• Whether s. 45.1 applies in the “Coombs” file; and
• How the allegations made in the “Collins” file relate to the grounds named by the applicant in that file and whether the Tribunal has the power to hear that Application.

4A hearing date was scheduled for March 30, 2010 and the parties attended. At the outset, counsel for respondents raised two concerns about the presiding Vice-chair and the hearing was adjourned. An Interim Decision was issued, 2010 HRTO 751, in which the Vice-chair wrote:

Although I have not predetermined any of the matters before me in these Applications and although the respondents have not brought a formal request that I recuse myself, in the circumstances, it is my view that a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the concerns raised by the respondents would be to have another adjudicator hear this matter.

The Registrar will schedule another hearing date in the normal course.

5By Confirmation of Rescheduled Joint Hearing Notice dated May 12, 2010, the Tribunal scheduled another hearing date for October 6, 2010. In this Notice, the parties were advised that the hearing would commence at 10:00 am on October 6, 2010 at the Waterfront Banquet & Conference Centre, 555 Bay Street North, Hamilton, Harbourview “B” Room. I was assigned to conduct the hearing.

6At the time and place set for the commencement of the hearing, the respondents attended along with counsel and representatives from the City of Hamilton. The applicant did not attend.

7In accordance with the Tribunal’s practice, the hearing was adjourned until 10:30. When the hearing resumed at 10:35, the applicant still had not attended. The respondents submitted that the Applications should be dismissed. Counsel for the respondents submitted that proper notice had been given to the applicant and this was the respondents’ second attendance at a hearing on these files. The Tribunal ruled orally that the Application would be dismissed with a written decision to follow.

DECISION

8Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

Where a party has been notified of a hearing and fails to attend, the Tribunal may:

a) proceed in the party’s absence;

b) determine that the party is not entitled to further notice of the proceedings;

c) determine that the party is not entitled to present evidence or make submissions to the Tribunal;

d) decide the Application based solely on the materials before it;

e) take any other action it considers appropriate.

9The applicant commenced legal proceedings when she filed her Applications with the Tribunal. It is the applicant’s responsibility to participate in these proceedings by taking the necessary steps to pursue it, including attending the hearing scheduled to determine the issues raised in the CAD. She has not done so.

10I am satisfied the applicant received timely and proper notice of the hearing, but has failed to attend. Accordingly, the Applications are dismissed as abandoned.