Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Lauren Mizen
Applicant
-and-
Transcom Worlwide
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Mizen v. Transcom Worldwide
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 March 3, 2011.
2On July 25, 2011, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 1375 which directed the following:
…
(b) The applicant is directed to submit, within 30 days of this Interim Decision, any additional materials, evidence and written submissions she wishes the Tribunal to consider in deciding this Application and, in particular, the applicant is directed to provide a copy of the medical documentation referenced in the Application;
c) The applicant is also required to advise the Tribunal in writing, within 30 days of this Interim Decision, as to whether or not she wishes to make oral submissions via conference call before the Tribunal finally determines the Application[.]
3No correspondence or communication was received from the applicant in accordance with the Interim Decision.
4On September 28, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing the applicant to respond in writing and indicate whether she wishes to proceed with this Application. The letter further required the applicant to file the submissions in accordance with the Interim Decision.
5The CAD warned the applicant that a failure to respond within 10 days would be deemed an abandonment of the Application.
6As of the date of this Decision the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal and the Tribunal’s correspondence has not been returned.
7In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application and the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 31^st^ day of October , 2011.
”signed by”__________
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair