Polusny v. Feige Denturist Professional Corporation, 2012 HRTO 1380

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lee Ann Pam Polusny

Applicant

-and-

Feige Denturist Professional Corporation and Ron Feig

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: July 12, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1380

Indexed as: Polusny v. Feige Denturist Professional Corporation

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 7, 2011.

2On January 12, 2012, the respondents filed their Response to the Application under s. 34 of the Code. The Tribunal sent the Response to Application to the applicant by way of letter dated February 9, 2012.

3In its letter to the applicant of February 9, 2012, the applicant was advised that she could file a Reply to the Response to Application by February 23, 2012. To the date hereof, the applicant has not filed a Reply.

4On May 9, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Mediation to the parties confirming that mediation of the Application would take place on July 25, 2012 at the Best Western Guildwood Inn, 1400 Venetian Blvd., Vidal Room, Sarnia, Ontario. The Notice was mailed to the applicant at the address provided in the Application and was not returned as undeliverable. The Notice was also mailed to the respondents’ legal representative, Paula M. Rusak, Mathews, Dinsdale & Clark, LLP, at the address provided in the Response and was not returned as undeliverable.

5By letter dated May 18, 2012 sent by email to the Tribunal, the respondents’ representative, Ms. Rusak, advised that the respondents were unable to attend the mediation scheduled for July 25, 2012 and asked that the mediation be rescheduled to one of three possible dates listed: July 27, August 9 or 10, 2012. Ms. Rusak also advised that she had not been able to contact the applicant by telephone directly to provide the Tribunal with the parties’ mutually agreeable mediation dates because the applicant’s telephone number as listed in the Application was not in service.

6By email dated May 22, 2012 sent to the applicant, the Tribunal advised the parties that the mediation scheduled for July 25, 2012 was cancelled and directed the applicant to select one of the dates proposed by the respondents for the rescheduling of the mediation.

7The applicant did not communicate with the Tribunal to provide rescheduled mediation dates as requested by the Tribunal in its email to the applicant on May 22, 2012.

8On June 12, 2012, the Tribunal wrote the applicant directing that she advise it of her intentions with respect to the Application. The letter warned the applicant that a failure to respond to the letter by June 22, 2012, may be deemed an abandonment of the Application.

9As of the date of this Decision the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal and the Tribunal’s correspondence to her of June 12, 2012 has not been returned.

10By letter to the Tribunal dated June 25, 2012, the respondents’ representative, Ms. Rusak, requested that the Application be declared as abandoned given that the applicant did not respond to the requests for alternate mediation dates.

11In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application and the Application is dismissed.