Caroline Lavereau v. Joan Sills and Cathy White, 2011 HRTO 1711

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Caroline Lavereau

Applicant

-and-

Joan Sills and Cathy White

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: September 16, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1711

Indexed as: Lavereau v. Joan Sills

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 April 14, 2010.

2On June 18, 2010, the respondents filed a Response and on August 9, 2010 the applicant filed a Reply to the Response.

3On March 8, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Mediation to the parties advising that a mediation in the matter had been scheduled for May 2, 2011.

4By letter dated April 18, 2011, the respondents’ counsel wrote to the Tribunal with a copy to the applicant requesting that the mediation in the matter be rescheduled to one of seven dates in June 2011. Respondents’ counsel indicated that she had attempted to contact the applicant by email, regular mail and telephone to secure alternative mediation dates but had been unsuccessful. Copies of the respondents’ counsel’s written correspondence to the applicant was provided to the Tribunal.

5On May 6, 2011, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant by email with a copy to the respondents. In its email, the Tribunal requested that the applicant advise as to her availability on four of the mediation dates proposed by the respondents’ representative.

6On August 22, 2011, 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, and advised the applicant that she must canvass five mutually agreeable dates with the respondents to reschedule the mediation and provide them to the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s August 22, 2011 letter stated that if the applicant failed to respond by September 1, 2011 the Application might be deemed to have been abandoned and the file closed.

7To date, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s email of May 6, 2011 or letter of August 22, 2011, and the email and letter have not been returned as undeliverable.

8In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

9The Application is dismissed.