Collier v. Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, 2012 HRTO 165

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Toni Collier

Applicant

-and-

Royal Ottawa Health Care Group and Alison Freeland

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: January 20, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 165

Indexed as: Collier v. Royal Ottawa Health Care Group

APPEARANCES:

Toni Collier, Applicant ) Failed to appear

Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, Respondent ) Michelle O’Bonsawin, Counsel

Alison Freeland, Respondent ) Laura Stewart, Counsel

1The applicant filed this Application on October 15, 2009, alleging discrimination in the provision on services on the basis of creed, disability and sexual orientation, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”). By Case Assessment Direction dated February 24, 2011, this Application was set down for a summary hearing by teleconference on the issue of whether it has a reasonable prospect of success.

2A summary hearing in this matter was initially scheduled to take place on June 3, 2011, but was adjourned to July 6, 2011 when counsel for the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group (“ROHCG”) advised the Tribunal she was not available on the June date. Subsequent to that, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal that she was not available on July 6, 2011, and asking to adjourn the matter to October 2, 2011. The Tribunal did not respond to this request.

3Subsequent to that, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal indicating that she is not competent to represent herself as a result of treatment she has received, and was seeking to retain the assistance of counsel, whom she names in the letter. This letter is not dated, but was apparently mailed in mid-June, although with the disruption in the mail service, the Tribunal did not receive it until June 29, 2011.

4The July 6, 2011 summary hearing was to proceed by way of a teleconference. When the teleconference commenced, the applicant was not on the line. She was advised of the conference call after it started and was asked to phone in on the line. The applicant did, in fact, phone as requested, but indicated she was not willing to participate without the assistance of counsel, even to the extent of listening to me canvass dates with the respondents’ counsel. I adjourned the conference call to a date to be subsequently determined.

5The applicant faxed in letters to the Tribunal, dated July 7 and 8, 2011 indicating her preferred date of January 17, 2012. After I issued a Case Assessment Direction on July 14, 2011, confirming that the Tribunal was seeking to re-schedule the summary hearing, the applicant faxed in notes on July 18, 19 and 22, 2011 stating that she was available on January 17, 2012 (and thereafter, not until March 16, 2012). She also indicated in the last note that she had been unable to retain counsel.

6On September 14, 2011 a Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the parties indicating that the rescheduled summary hearing would be held on January 17, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. The applicant’s address was for the patient advocate at the ROHCG. This was not returned. On October 19, 2011, the applicant left a voice-mail in which she provided a new address.

7The applicant did not participate in the January 17, 2012 summary hearing. I adjourned the hearing for one hour, during which time efforts were made to contact the applicant. It became apparent that the Tribunal did not have current contact information for the applicant.

8Counsel for the respondents indicated that they, likewise, have no contact information. Counsel for the ROHCG indicated that the applicant had been discharged into the community approximately six months ago, and that the ROHCG did not have current contact information. Moreover, it had no means of obtaining this information as it would be considered confidential.

9There is no indication that the Notice of Conference Call was returned as undeliverable or that the applicant did not receive it. I am satisfied that the applicant received timely and proper notice of the conference call.

10In light of the absence of the applicant during the January 17, 2012 summary hearing, the absence of any explanation for her failure to attend as required and her failure to keep the Tribunal apprised of her current contact information, I find that the Application is abandoned and it is dismissed on that basis.