minicounsel

Trisha Mohan v. Mathew Mesdag, 2010 HRTO 387

February 17, 2010

Trisha Mohan v. Mathew Mesdag, 2010 HRTO 387

Case Summary

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent. The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to be removed and to add a corporate respondent. The applicant failed to respond to the Request, failed to provide required disclosure, and failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction asking if she intended to proceed. The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Trisha Mohan

Applicant

-and-

Mathew Mesdag

Respondent

Decison

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: February 17, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 387

Indexed as: Mohan v. Mesdag

[1] This is an Application filed on April 21, 2009 under section 34 of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

[2] On November 12, 2009 the respondent Mesdag delivered and filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (Request) seeking to be removed from the Application and, in the event that Request was granted, a further order adding UAP Inc. as a corporate respondent. UAP Inc. was said to be the employer of the respondent Mesdag and the former employer of the applicant.

[3] The applicant failed to respond to the Request. The applicant had also made none of the disclosure or filings required by the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The respondent wrote to the applicant on January 4, 2010 noting the failure to file a Response to the Request as well as a failure to provide disclosure as noted above. The respondent asked the applicant to confirm in writing whether or not she intended to proceed further with her Application. The applicant never responded to the respondent’s letter.

[4] In these circumstances it appeared that there was reason to believe that the applicant had abandoned her Application and a Case Assessment Direction was issued on January 29, 2010, amongst other things, directing the applicant to advise the respondent and Tribunal in writing if she intended to proceed with the Application on or before February 5, 2010 failing which the hearing scheduled on February 8 and 9, 2010 would be cancelled and the Application dismissed. By the end of the day February 5, 2010 the applicant had failed to notify the Tribunal of her intention to proceed and the hearing dates were cancelled.

[5] In all the circumstances I find that the applicant has abandoned her Application and it is dismissed. In the circumstances there is no reason to deal with the issues raised in the respondent’s Request.

Dated at Toronto, this 17^th day of February 2010.

“signed by”

David Muir

Vice-chair