Christina Quaresma v. Delta Bingo Inc. and Ulric Williams, 2011 HRTO 338

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christina Quaresma Applicant

-and-

Delta Bingo Inc. and Ulric Williams Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: February 17, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 338

Indexed as: Quaresma v. Delta Bingo

APPEARANCES

) Christina Quaresma, Applicant ) Did not appear ) ) Delta Bingo Inc. and ) Dale Ross, Counsel Ulric Williams, Respondents ) )

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on December 11, 2009, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. The respondents filed Responses, dated March 3 and 12, 2010, respectively, denying the allegations.

2The Tribunal sent the parties a Confirmation of Hearing notice by regular mail on October 12, 2010. At the time, all parties were represented by counsel. Neither Notice was returned as undeliverable. The Notice informed the parties that the Tribunal had scheduled a hearing for February 16 and 17, 2011, in Toronto. I am satisfied that the applicant had proper notice of the hearing.

3On November 2, 2010, the applicant’s counsel from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (“HRLSC”) contacted the Tribunal to advise that the Centre was no longer representing the applicant in this matter. The letter provided an updated service address for the applicant.

4On January 3, 2011, the respondents filed their disclosure in advance of the hearing as required by the Rules. The disclosure that was sent to the applicant at the address on record was returned as undeliverable. Further, the applicant failed to comply with her disclosure obligations under the Rules, and has been completely out of contact with the Tribunal since at least November 2010, when the HRLSC withdrew as counsel.

5The respondents’ counsel attended the hearing at the date, time, and place that was set out in the Confirmation of Hearing notice. After waiting 30 minutes, I determined that the applicant had failed to appear.

6I invited submissions from the respondents on how I should deal with the applicant’s failure to appear. The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application as abandoned. In support of this request, they relied on the above facts, namely the applicant’s non-responsiveness over the past three months and her non-attendance at the hearing.

7After considering the respondents’ request, I ruled orally that the Application is dismissed as abandoned, with written reasons to follow.

8The applicant commenced a legal proceeding when she filed this Application with the Tribunal. It is the applicant’s responsibility to participate in this proceeding by taking the necessary steps to pursue it, including completing necessary procedural steps and attending the scheduled hearing dates.

9Furthermore, filing an application engages the use of the Tribunal’s resources in the processing of the matter. Filing an application also results in the respondent having to invest resources and time to respond to the application and prepare for a hearing. For these reasons, an application must be treated seriously. It is reasonable for the Tribunal to expect applicants to demonstrate their commitment to their obligations under the process.

10The Application is dismissed.