Christie Leong v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 1085

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christie Leong Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright, Mark Hart and Judith Keene Date: May 31, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1085 Indexed as: Leong v. Peel (Regional Police Services Board)

APPEARANCES

Christie Leong, Applicant No one appearing

The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, William Bilyj, Rebecca Parkins and Kevin Woodley, Respondents Patty Murray and Stephanie Geronimo, Counsel

1This is a Decision in respect of an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability. The Application was deferred pending the resolution of a public complaint under the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15: 2010 HRTO 725. The Request to Reactivate was filed beyond the 60-day period provided for in Rule 14.4. The respondents sought dismissal on this basis, as well as under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19. The Tribunal scheduled this Application for hearing with several other Applications that raise issues of the interpretation of s. 45.1 in the context of police discipline complaints.

2The Tribunal set deadlines for written submissions in advance of the hearing, which was scheduled for May 14, 15, and 16, 2012. The Notice of Hearing and other materials were sent to the applicant’s e-mail address. The applicant neither filed written submissions, nor attended at the hearing, nor communicated with the Tribunal in any other manner following an update of her e-mail address on November 2, 2011. The Notice of Hearing, which was sent to the applicant by e-mail on December 11, 2011 includes the following statement:

If you fail to attend the hearing after receiving proper notice the HRTO may:

• proceed in your absence;
• determine you are not entitled to further notice of the proceedings;
• determine you are not entitled to present evidence or make submissions to the HRTO;
• decide the Application based solely on the materials before the HRTO;
• dismiss the Application as abandoned if the applicant fails to attend, and;
• take any other action the HRTO considers appropriate.

3The respondents asked that the Application be dismissed as abandoned, and their counsel also made extensive submissions on the issue of s. 45.1 in the alternative. In the circumstances, we find that there is no need to deal with the issue of s. 45.1, although we will consider respondent counsel’s submissions in addressing the general issues of the interpretation of s. 45.1 in the related cases.

4The applicant did not comply with the direction to file submissions on the issues in question, did not attend the hearing, and did not advise the Tribunal of any reason she would not or could not attend the oral hearing. In all the circumstances, given the applicant’s failure to file materials or attend the hearing, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.