Dawkins v. Young Women’s Christian Association of Greater Toronto, 2010 HRTO 476

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Pamela Dawkins Applicant

-and-

Young Women’s Christian Association of Greater Toronto and Pamela Gawn Respondents

Decision

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: March 2, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 476 Indexed as: Dawkins v. Young Women’s Christian Association of Greater Toronto

Appearances

Pamela Dawkins, Applicant: No one appearing Young Women’s Christian Association of Greater Toronto and Pamela Gawn, Respondents: Frances Gallop, Counsel

1This is an Application filed on February 17, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2A hearing was scheduled for March 2, 2010, starting at 9:30 a.m. at the Tribunal’s hearing centre in Toronto. The applicant did not appear. The Tribunal waited for a half-hour and sought submissions from the respondents. The respondents argued that the Application should be dismissed. After hearing from the respondents, I dismissed the Application as abandoned. The following are the Tribunal’s reasons.

3The Tribunal’s Confirmation of Hearing Notice of October 30, 2009, was sent to the address of the applicant’s representative at that time, the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC).

4Subsequently, on January 5, 2010, the HRLSC advised the Tribunal by letter that it was no longer representing the applicant and that all future correspondence/documents be forwarded to the applicant’s attention. The letter identified a current mailing address for the applicant.

5On February 9, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), which directed, among other things, that the applicant provide particulars regarding certain allegations made in her Application within 7 days of the date of the CAD. In addition, the CAD cancelled two hearing dates and indicated that the parties should be prepared to address certain issues at the hearing on March 2, 2010. This CAD was sent to the applicant by courier and mail at the address that had been provided by the HRLSC. Neither package has been returned to the Tribunal.

6The applicant did not comply with the Tribunal’s directions set out in the CAD.

7In the course of their submissions, the respondents confirmed that they had also sent correspondence to the applicant at the address provided by the HRLSC and she had responded to the correspondence.

8The Tribunal has not received a request to adjourn the hearing date or any other indication that the applicant would not be attending.

9In the circumstances of this Application, I am satisfied that the applicant received notice of the hearing and the CAD, which confirmed the hearing date. The applicant has not complied with the Tribunal’s directions as set out in the CAD nor has she made any request to adjourn the hearing or otherwise indicate that she would not be attending. In the absence of the applicant and any explanation for her non-attendance, I confirm that the Application is dismissed as abandoned.