HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Antoinette Imbesi

Applicant

-and-

David Pomer

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: February 18, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 379

Indexed as: Imbesi v. Pomer

APPEARANCES:

Antoinette Imbesi, Applicant ) No appearance

David Pomer, Respondent ) Doug Laframboise, student at law

[1] A hearing to deal with this Application was scheduled for February 11, 2010. The applicant did not appear. The respondent did not appear but was represented by Doug Laframboise, an articling student. Mr. Laframboise advised that he was in telephone contact with the respondent who was available to attend if necessary.

[2] On February 9, 2010, the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal’s Registrar. It stated:

Please be advised that I will have to reschedule my meeting on Feb 11, 2010 @ 9:30 am. I have work obligations that won't allow me to leave at that time. I am available in the afternoon of the same day or if another day is available for me to attend.

[3] The Tribunal Case Processing Officer responded to this email shortly after it was received:

Before the Tribunal can consider your request, you must send a copy of your email to the respondent. Please do so immediately and copy of Registrar on the email to confirm delivery. Thank you.

[4] No further emails or correspondence were received from the applicant.

[5] At approximately 3:30 on February 10, 2010, the Tribunal Registrar received a voice message from an unidentified person indicating that the applicant wanted the matter adjourned.

[6] Mr. Laframboise advised that the respondent was unaware that the applicant was seeking an adjournment. He stated that the respondent had received no email or other communication from the applicant regarding her adjournment request. Mr. Laframboise advised that the respondent had experienced significant inconvenience as a result of the scheduled hearing. The respondent had to reschedule other matters. A witness was present on behalf of the respondent and the fact that he was away from the office and unable to deal with business matters was costly. Mr. Laframboise asked that the Application be dismissed and that the applicant be directed to pay costs.

[7] The Tribunal’s Rule 1.12 states:

All written communications with the Tribunal must be addressed to the Registrar, with a copy delivered to all other parties.

[8] Rule 3.13 states:

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

proceed in the party’s absence;

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

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

decide the Application based solely on the materials before it;

take any other action it considers appropriate.

[9] In this case, the applicant communicated an adjournment request to the Tribunal but did not send a copy of the request to the respondent. The Tribunal instructed her to send a copy of her request to the respondent but it appears that she did not do so. The hearing was not adjourned and the applicant failed to attend. I note that the applicant has law office work experience and, on the basis of the information before me, there is no reason to believe that she was unable to understand the Tribunal’s direction to her. Although the respondent did not appear at the hearing, a representative was present.

[10] In these circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to dismiss the Application on the grounds that the applicant failed to attend and the hearing was not adjourned.

[11] The Tribunal’s Rules do not give the Tribunal the authority to award costs.

Dated at Toronto, this 18^th^ day of February, 2010.

“Signed by”

Brian Cook

Vice-chair