HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ruth Butts
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of the County of Prince-Edward, Ron Genereux, Marilyn Brooks, Kareen Christ, Susan Chennells and Yvonne Haskin
Respondents
Decision
Adjudicator: David Muir
Date: January 19, 2011
Citation: 2011 HRTO 145
Indexed as: Butts v. Children’s Aid Society of the County of Prince Edward
[1] This is an Application filed June 26,2009 respectively under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
[2] The complaint underlying this Application was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 2004. In her complaint the applicant alleges that she is a person with a disability and the respondents have failed to accommodate her to the point of undue hardship.
[3] The respondents have identified a number of preliminary issues and has requested the Application be dismissed prior to a consideration of the merits.
[4] The hearing of the preliminary issues was first scheduled to take place on December 8, 2009 but was adjourned at the request of the applicant. After a considerable period of delay as a consequence of the applicant’s unwillingness to set a new date, the hearing of the preliminary issues was re-scheduled to occur on November 1, 2010. On October 29, 2010 the business day prior to the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment citing the inability of a witness to attend.
[5] The Tribunal did not grant the adjournment it being unclear why a witness was required for the preliminary issues. Because the applicant had previously advised that she could only participate in the hearing by telephone the hearing was by teleconference. The parties were directed to attend the hearing to deal with the request to adjourn. The Tribunal made efforts to communicate with the applicant but she had left no return phone number where she could be reached.
[6] At the time set for the hearing the applicant was not present. The respondents were prepared to proceed. In accordance with the usual practice the Tribunal delayed the start of the hearing in the event that the applicant had been unavoidably delayed. The applicant never attended and the hearing proceeded in her absence. In the circumstances the respondent did not oppose the applicant’s adjournment request which was granted.
[7] In order to ensure the orderly adjudication of this Application the Tribunal made a number of Case Assessment Directions requiring the parties to file submissions and provide dates for a resumed hearing amongst other matters. The respondent attempted to comply with the Direction to file a statement of their position on all of the issues but their attempt to deliver their material to the applicant failed when the applicant failed to pick up the materials from the post office. The applicant has not communicated with the Tribunal in any way since making the adjournment request on or about October 29, 2010. There is reason to believe that the applicant may have abandoned the Application.
[8] Accordingly, in a Case Assessment Direction issued on January 7, 2011, the Tribunal directed that if the applicant intended to proceed further with her Application she would communicate this in writing to the Tribunal and the respondents within 10 days of the date of the Case Assessment Direction failing which the Application would be dismissed as abandoned. The applicant was also directed to explain her failure to comply with prior directions and to provide a date for the resumption of the hearing.
[9] As of the date of this Decision there has been no communication of any kind from the applicant. Accordingly the Application is dismissed as abandoned.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of January, 2011.
Signed by
David Muir
Vice-chair