Julie Bridgen v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2012 HRTO 1780

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Julie Bridgen

Applicant

-and-

Law Society of Upper Canada

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: September 19, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1780

Indexed as: Bridgen v. Law Society of Upper Canada

APPEARANCES

Law Society of Upper Canada, Respondent

Sybila Valdivieso, Counsel

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 services because of family status, marital status, disability and reprisal.

2A summary hearing by teleconference was scheduled in this matter for September 12, 2012 by way of a Notice of Summary Hearing ("the Notice") sent by the Tribunal to the parties on June 27, 2012. The Notice advises the parties that the hearing would commence at 1:30 pm on September 12, 2012 by teleconference.

3Approximately one hour prior to the scheduled hearing the applicant emailed the Tribunal's Registrar to state:

A motion for summary dismissal by the Law Society with respect to a complaint I made via telephone conferencing is scheduled for today. I will not be making the call. The Law Society has resources that I could not match. My apologies but I do not have the file number on hand.

4The Registrar replied by asking the applicant to confirm that this email was in reference to her Application, Tribunal file 2012-11676-I, scheduled for a hearing at 1:30 pm on September 12, 2012.

5I commenced the hearing at 1:30 pm on September 12, 2012. The applicant did not participate. I heard brief submissions from the respondent. The respondent submits that the Tribunal should dismiss the Application as abandoned. The respondent further submits that the applicant has failed to establish that there is a reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed. The hearing finished at approximately 1:45p.m..

6At approximately 2:00 p.m. on September 12, 2012 the applicant emailed the Registrar to confirm that she had been referring to her Application, Tribunal file 2012-11676-I, in her earlier email and to further state:

I am not confident that this will benefit me to go ahead. The Law Society has a grave advantage and I am not willing to expend anymore time on something where the respondent has such an advantage.

7I am satisfied, based on the applicant's emails and her failure to participate in her hearing, that the applicant has abandoned her Application. As a consequence her Application is dismissed.