Woodwork v. Governing Council of the Salvation Army, 2011 HRTO 1043

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Elizabeth Woodwork Applicant

-and-

Governing Council of the Salvation Army and Jeff Johnston Respondents

Decision

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha Date: June 10, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1043 Indexed as: Woodwork v. Governing Council of the Salvation Army

1This is an Application that was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), on June 4, 2010.

2In a Case Assessment Direction, dated September 16, 2010, the Tribunal ordered that a summary hearing be held on whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. While such hearings are normally held orally, the Tribunal acceded to an accommodation request by the applicant that the issue would be dealt with on the basis of her written submissions. The applicant was given until October 15, 2010 to file written submissions.

3The applicant requested two time extensions but ultimately filed extensive submissions and supporting materials on January 28, 2011. She also requested that an oral hearing be scheduled.

4The summary hearing was initially scheduled for March 25, 2011, but was adjourned to May 31, 2011. Less than two weeks before the hearing, the applicant requested the date be moved to a day earlier, May 30, 2011, due to her stated unavailability on May 31, 2011. The hearing was re-scheduled for 1:30pm on May 30, 2011.

5On the day of the hearing, the respondents and respondents' counsel attended by way of conference call at the allotted time. The applicant did not attend. After waiting 30 minutes and verifying that she had been properly notified of the hearing date and that no communication had been received from the applicant on the morning of the hearing, the Tribunal invited the respondents to make submissions on how to proceed.

6Counsel for the respondents requested that the Application be dismissed as abandoned by the applicant. In support of this request, counsel argued that the applicant had ample time to prepare, had sought and been granted time extensions to file her materials, had been accommodated in the scheduling date, and had specifically asked for an oral hearing even though the Tribunal had initially agreed to hear the preliminary issues in writing only. In short, the respondents argued, the hearing was tailored to the applicant's needs and she had every reason to attend. Her failure to attend could only mean that she had abandoned the process.

7On the basis of the information in the file and the respondents' submissions, I granted the request and dismissed the case orally, finding that the applicant had full notice and opportunity to prepare for the summary hearing. She has, in the past, demonstrated an ability to communicate with the Tribunal in respect of deadlines and procedures, yet appeared not to have done so on this occasion. The date had been scheduled in response to a specific request from the applicant, and then she did not attend and did not ask for an adjournment. On that basis, I found that the applicant had abandoned her Application and I dismissed the case.

8Later in the day, it came to the Tribunal's attention that the applicant had faxed a note to the Tribunal in the early afternoon of May 30, 2011, requesting that the Tribunal phone her to enable her participation in the summary hearing. She appeared to be under the misapprehension that the summary hearing was scheduled for the next day, May 31, 2011, despite having previously informed the Tribunal that she was unavailable on the 31st and having requested the summary hearing be re-scheduled to the 30th. The applicant did not provide any explanation.

9Then on May 31, 2011, in correspondence received on June 3, 2011, the applicant provided an explanation for her failure to attend the summary hearing and pleaded for the Tribunal's indulgence. Such representations, which provide new information in support of a request to vary an order, are best provided in the form of a Request for Reconsideration (Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure). Instructions and the necessary forms are available on the Tribunal's website: www.hrto.on.ca. If the applicant wishes to file a Request for Reconsideration, Rule 26 requires that the Request be delivered to the respondent and filed with the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of this Decision. The Request should detail the reason(s) for her failure to attend the summary hearing. If the applicant files a Request for Reconsideration, the Tribunal will then determine whether a response from the respondent will be required.

10In the light of the above, there is no basis at this time to vary the order that was made orally during the hearing dismissing the case.