Nikulina v. Loblaws Inc., 2012 HRTO 1832

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lyudmyla (Myla) Nikulina

Applicant

-and-

Loblaws Inc. and Scott McDougall

Respondents

-and-

The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 175 and 633

Proposed Intervenor

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: September 25, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1832

Indexed as: Nikulina v. Loblaws Inc.

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 because of origin and ethnic origin.

2On June 11, 2012, the respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing (the “Request”). The applicant, although given an opportunity to respond, did not file a Response to a Request for Order During Proceedings. The respondents’ Request was granted by the Tribunal in a Case Assessment Direction dated July 11, 2012. A Notice of Summary Hearing, dated July 27, 2012, was issued to the parties scheduling the Summary Hearing for November 5, 2012.

3By letter dated August 10, 2012, the respondents’ counsel wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the Summary Hearing be rescheduled as he was not available on November 5, 2012. Respondents’ counsel indicated that he had canvassed alternate dates with the proposed intervenor and provided alternate dates on which both were available. Respondents’ counsel wrote that he attempted to communicate with the applicant about alternate dates, but she did not respond to his communications.

4On August 13, 2012, the Tribunal emailed the parties, noted the respondents’ rescheduling request was timely and the proposed alternate dates were available for the Tribunal and directed the applicant to confirm her availability for the proposed dates by August 23, 2012. On September 4, 2012, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant by regular mail and email, copying the respondents and the proposed intervenor, noted that the due date for her response had now passed and she had not responded to the Tribunal’s earlier email. The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm her intentions for her Application, drew her attention to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and directed her to respond by September 7, 2012, failing which the Tribunal may dismiss the Application as abandoned and close the file.

5It was determined that the September 4, 2012 letter was emailed to an incorrect email address for the applicant and later on September 4, 2012, the Tribunal emailed the letter again to the applicant using the email address that she provided on her Application. Upon review, it appears that the August 13, 2012 email from the Tribunal was also sent to the wrong email address for the applicant.

6The Tribunal’s September 4, 2012 letter has not been returned and it was sent to the same address as the Tribunal’s previous communications to the applicant, which had also not been returned, which had prompted other submissions from the applicant such as further information in response to a Notice of Incomplete Application and a Reply.

7The applicant has not communicated with the Tribunal since, at least, filing her Reply. Further, and more importantly, she has not complied with the direction set out in the Tribunal’s September 4, 2012 letter which warned her about the consequences of failing to comply with the Tribunal’s directions.

8Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.