Gisele Peconi v. 427024 Ontario Limited o/a Esso On The Run, 2012 HRTO 1166

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gisele Peconi Applicant

-and-

427024 Ontario Limited o/a Esso On The Run Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Decision Date: June 13, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1166 Indexed as: Peconi v. 427024 Ontario Limited

Introduction

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 November 19, 2010.

2On March 6, 2012, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Mediation to the parties scheduling a mediation for the Application on June 20, 2012.

3By email dated March 12, 2012, the respondent requested that the Tribunal reschedule the mediation to another date.

4On April 17, 2012, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant indicating that it was granting the Respondent’s request to reschedule the mediation and cancelling the June 20, 2012 mediation date. The letter directed the applicant to provide her availability for a rescheduled mediation date and to provide these dates to the HRTO by April 27, 2012. This letter was mailed to the applicant to the address provided by her in her Application. The Tribunal’s correspondence was not returned.

5On May 2, 2012, the Tribunal wrote another letter to the applicant indicating that she had failed to respond to the previous correspondence sent to her requesting her availability for mediation dates. This letter directed the applicant to confirm her intentions with respect to the Application and to respond to the Tribunal’s letter of April 17, 2012 requesting dates for the rescheduled mediation. The letter noted that the Tribunal may finally determine an Application without further notice to any person who cannot be contacted by the Tribunal according to the contact information provided to the Tribunal by that person. The letter directed the applicant to respond by May 11, 2012, and that if she failed to comply, her Application would be deemed to have been abandoned.

6The letter was mailed and couriered to the applicant’s mailing address provided in the Application. The Tribunal’s correspondence to her has not been returned.

7As of the date of this Decision the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal.

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