Hardman v. Grey County Housing, 2011 HRTO 1587

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary Hardman

Applicant

-and-

Grey County Housing

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: August 24, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1587

Indexed as: Hardman v. Grey County Housing

APPEARANCES

Mary Harman, Applicant ) No one appearing

Grey County Housing, Respondent ) Andrew Drury, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application on February 19, 2010, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in the area of housing because of disability and receipt of public assistance.

2By way of Case Assessment Direction dated March 18, 2011, the Tribunal determined that a conference call hearing would be held to hear the respondent’s request to dismiss under section 45.1 of the Code, specifically that the Landlord and Tenant Board has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

3On June 22, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing to the parties advising that, as per the Case Assessment Direction, the conference call hearing was scheduled at 9:30 a.m. on August 22, 2011.

4On August 22, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., the Tribunal convened a conference call to hear the parties’ submissions with respect to whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1. of the Code. The conference call proceeded with a representative of the respondent Grey County Housing and respondent’s counsel present. The applicant did not attend or participate on the call.

5After waiting 15 minutes, the Tribunal recessed the call until 10:00 a.m., at which time the conference call resumed; however, the applicant was still not in attendance. The applicant did not call in or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal that she was unable to participate in the conference call hearing. Counsel noted that the respondent sought that the Application be dismissed.

6As the applicant failed to participate in the conference call hearing, the Application is dismissed as being abandoned. Accordingly, I do not need to consider the respondent’s other submissions.

ORDER

7For the reasons stated above, the Application is dismissed.