Ruth Ann Lusk v. Mulcaster Mews Inc., 2012 HRTO 208

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ruth Ann Lusk

Applicant

-and-

Mulcaster Mews Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: January 27, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 208

Indexed as: Lusk v. Mulcaster Mews Inc.

1This is an Application made under s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code") dated September 3, 2010. In her Application the applicant alleges that her right to be free of discrimination in employment on the basis of a disability was infringed by the respondent.

2The hearing of this case was scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, January 26, 2012. The date was set and confirmed with the parties by Notice of Confirmation of Hearing dated July 19, 2011.

3At the time and place set for the hearing, no one for either party was in attendance. The respondents had called in to advise that they were running late. The respondents arrived at 9:45 a.m. The applicant had advised the day prior to the hearing that she would not be attending the hearing. This is further discussed below. In accordance with the Tribunal's usual practice, the hearing was adjourned for a period of time in the event that the applicant was merely delayed as the respondent had been.

4The hearing was reconvened at 10:10 a.m. The applicant was still not in attendance. The Application was dismissed orally at the hearing. My reasons for this determination follow.

5There is no question that the applicant was aware of the date and time of the hearing. Indeed, the applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing on January 24, 2012. This request was denied by the Tribunal in 2012 HRTO 189. In accordance with the Tribunal's practice, when a determination is made by the Tribunal regarding a late adjournment request, the parties are advised of the Tribunal's determination prior to their receipt of the reasons for the decision. In this case, the Tribunal determined that an adjournment was not appropriate in all the circumstances at that stage. In response to the Tribunal's notifying the applicant of this result, but before my reasons were released, the applicant responded, as indicated above, that she would not be attending at the hearing scheduled for January 26, 2012.

6I am satisfied that the applicant had appropriate notice of the date and time of the hearing and had chosen to abandon the Application in response to my determination to deny her adjournment request.

7The Application is dismissed as abandoned.