HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Haskins

Applicant

-and-

Cetero Research, Allied Research International and IRB Services Inc.

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: August 18, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1550

Indexed as: Haskins v. Cetero Research

APPEARANCES

Angela Haskins, Applicant ) Did not Appear

Cetero Research, ) Lauren Bernardi, Counsel Respondent )

Allied Research International, ) Tegan Houlachan, Rep. Respondent )

IRB Services Inc. ) Lisa Corrente, Counsel Respondent )

1This Application, filed under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to contracts on the basis of disability. The applicant filed her Application with the Tribunal on July 14, 2010, and, it appears, delivered a copy to each of the respondents prior to filing it.

2On October 20, 2010, the applicant filed a Request that the Tribunal issue a default judgement, arguing that the time for the respondents to file and deliver their Responses had passed. At that point, however, the Tribunal had not even delivered the Application to the respondents, and the respondents’ were therefore not yet required to file any Response.

3On November 29, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) which did not deal with the applicant’s Request for a default judgement. Instead, the CAD directed that the applicant explain at a Summary Hearing how there is a reasonable prospect that she could prove that she experienced discrimination because of disability. The CAD confirmed that the Application had not at that point been sent to the respondents by the Tribunal, but was being delivered to the respondents with the CAD. The CAD directed that the respondents need not file any Response.

4On June 10, 2011, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Summary Hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m., August 12, 2011 by teleconference. On July 1, 2011, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal that she “is not needed at the Summary Hearing” because she feels “it is left to the Registrar to look over the documents and approve the Judgement Order.”

5On July 13, 2011, the Tribunal issued another CAD which stated:

The applicant must be prepared at the Summary Hearing scheduled for August 12, 2011 to address the issues raised by the [November 29, 2010] CAD. The Tribunal will not deal with her Request for a default judgement or order until after deciding the issues raised by the [November 29, 2010] CAD, but the applicant should review Rule 8.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure governing s. 34 of the Code. It allows respondents to file a Response 35 days after the Tribunal, not the applicant, sends them an Application.

6On August 12, 2011, the respondents appeared by teleconference at the Summary Hearing at 9:30 a.m. The applicant failed to appear by 10:00 a.m. The respondents made submissions asking that the Application be dismissed as abandoned on the basis that the applicant had failed to appear.

7Given that the applicant confirmed receiving the Notice of Summary Hearing, and given that the July 13, 2011 CAD made it clear that the applicant’s Request would not be dealt with until after the Summary Hearing so that she was required to attend, the Application is dismissed as abandoned on the basis that the applicant failed to appear at the hearing.