Cooley v. 1512081 Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1454

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Allison Cooley

Applicant

-and-

1512081 Ontario Ltd. and 1739974 Ontario Ltd.

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: August 3, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1454

Indexed as: Cooley v. 1512081 Ontario

Decision

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 October 20, 2009.

2On February 2, 2010, the respondents filed a Response.

3On July 26, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Mediation to the parties advising that a mediation in the matter had been scheduled for September 29, 2010.

4By letter dated September 7, 2010, the respondents’ representative wrote to the Tribunal with a copy to the applicant requesting that the mediation in the matter be rescheduled to one of five dates in March 2011, as she was caring for a newborn and unable to attend the mediation on September 29, 2010.

5On September 13, 2010, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant by email and by regular mail at the addresses provided by the applicant in her Application. In its letter, the Tribunal requested that the applicant advise as to her availability on the mediation dates proposed by the respondents’ representative, or alternatively, provide five alternative dates. The Tribunal’s email was returned as undeliverable.

6On June 21, 2011, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant by email, due to the postal strike, requesting that she advise the Tribunal of her intentions with respect to the Application, including whether she wished to have a mediation scheduled. The Tribunal’s June 21, 2011 letter indicated that if the applicant failed to respond within 10 days of the date of the letter, the Application would be deemed to have been abandoned and the file closed. The email was returned as undeliverable.

7On July 4, 2011, the Tribunal again attempted to contact the applicant to determine her intentions with respect to the Application. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant by email and by regular mail at the addresses provided by the applicant in her Application. The Tribunal requested that the applicant advise the Tribunal of her intentions with respect to the Application, including whether she wished to have a mediation scheduled. The Tribunal’s July 4, 2011 letter stated that if the applicant failed to respond within 10 days of the date of the letter, the Application would be deemed to have been abandoned and the file closed. The email was returned as undeliverable.

8To date, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s letters of September 13, 2010, June 21, 2011 or July 4, 2011. While the Tribunal’s emails enclosing these letters have been returned as undeliverable, the copies of the letters sent to the applicant by regular mail have not been returned.

9In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

10The Application is dismissed.