Connie Watts v. 1581842 Ontario Limited O/A Living Lighting #23, 2012 HRTO 1452

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Connie Watts

Applicant

-and-

1581842 Ontario Limited O/A Living Lighting #23

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: July 25, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1452

Indexed as: Watts v. 1581842 Ontario Limited

1This is 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 employment.

2In a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) dated April 18, 2012 I indicated that it appeared that the applicant may have abandoned the Application and directed that she provide submissions indicating her intentions with respect to this case. In response the applicant wrote to the Tribunal on May 7, 2012 requesting an adjournment of the hearing scheduled to take place on June 1, 2012 because her husband had passed away.

3The respondent did not oppose the adjournment request but expressed frustration with the fact that the applicant has not to date complied with the Tribunal’s Rules regarding production of documents. The respondent also indicated that it was their understanding that the applicant’s spouse had passed away on March 4, 2012.

4In the circumstances and given that the respondent did not oppose it the adjournment request was granted. Because the applicant had not complied with the Tribunal’s Rules on production of documents the applicant was directed to deliver and file the materials required under Rules 16 and 17 as described in an April 18, 2012 Case Assessment Direction on or before June 29, 2012 failing which this Application may be dismissed. The applicant did not respond to this Direction.

5On July 6, 2012 the Tribunal wrote to the parties and advised that the applicant had not complied with the Directions above and directed her to do so by July 13, 2012 failing which the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

6As of this writing the applicant has not complied with the Tribunal’s Rules regarding productions although directed to do so on multiple occasions. Morevoer the applicant has not responded to any of the Tribunal’s communications since her

adjournment Request received on May 7, 2012. In all of the circumstances it appears that the applicant has abandoned this Application and accordingly it must be dismissed.