HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Suzanne George Applicant
-and-
St. Jude Catholic School Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: July 22, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1376 Indexed as: George v. St. Jude Catholic School
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on May 25, 2009.
2On December 18, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Mediation to the parties confirming that mediation of the Application would take place on April 6, 2010 at Toronto. The Notice was mailed to the applicant’s address provided in the Application and was not returned as undeliverable.
3An amended Notice of Mediation was sent to the parties on March 8, 2010 rescheduling the mediation. The rescheduling was at the request of the applicant who advised on March 29, 2010 that her counsel was not available at the original time. The mediation was rescheduled for the same date, April 6, 2010, but for a different time. It was rescheduled to start at 1:30 pm instead of 9:30 am.
4The applicant did not attend the scheduled mediation session on April 6, 2010.
5On April 6, 2010 the Tribunal contacted the applicant’s representative who advised that the applicant had advised that she would not be able to attend the scheduled mediation. Apparently this notice was sent by fax and mail. The Tribunal has no record of receiving this correspondence.
6On April 20, 2010 the Tribunal sent a letter to the parties asking them to provide dates in order to schedule another mediation.
7Between April 30, 2010 and May 19, 2010 there was email and fax correspondence between the parties and the Tribunal in an attempt to find mutually acceptable available dates for the rescheduled mediation.
8On June 3, 2010, the Tribunal issued another Notice of Mediation to the parties confirming that a rescheduled mediation of the Application would take place on October 21, 2010 at Toronto.
9On October 19, 2010 the respondents requested that the October 21, 2010 mediation be rescheduled as a result of a death.
10On January 14, 2011, the Tribunal issued another Notice of Mediation to the parties confirming that a rescheduled mediation of the Application would take place on March 30, 2011 at Toronto. The Notice was mailed to the applicant’s address provided in the Application and was not returned as undeliverable.
11On March 29, 2011, the day before the scheduled mediation, the applicant called the Tribunal and advised that she would not be available to attend. She was advised by the Tribunal to put her request and reasons in writing.
12Once again, the applicant did not attend the scheduled mediation session. The applicant did not communicate in writing with the Tribunal as requested to explain the failure to attend.
13In a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) dated May 25, 2011, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing would be held on its own initiative to determine whether this application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed. The Tribunal directed the applicant’s next friend to confirm with the Tribunal within 2 weeks of the CAD that she intends to attend and participate in the summary hearing. The CAD noted that failure to do so may result in the Application being dismissed as abandoned. The CAD was sent by courier with proof of delivery dated May 26, 2011.
14Neither the applicant nor the applicant’s next friend has responded to the Tribunal and the Tribunal’s correspondence to them has not been returned.
15In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application and the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of July, 2011
“Signed By”
__________________________________
David A. Wright Associate chair