HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Steve Rattray
Applicant
-and-
Gail Lamont
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Indexed as: Rattray v. Lamont
APPEARANCES
Steven Rattray, Applicant
No one appearing
Gail Lamont, Respondent
No one appearing
Introduction
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 housing because of family status and age.
2On February 16, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties confirming that hearing of the Application would take place on October 12, 2012, commencing at 10:00 a.m. at the London Chamber of Commerce, Aboutown Room, 101-244 Pall Mall Street, London, Ontario. The Notice was delivered to the applicant at the last address provided by the applicant to the Tribunal and was not returned as undeliverable. The Notice advised the parties of the possible consequences of failing to attend the hearing, including “dismiss the Application as abandoned if the applicant fails to attend”.
3I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing.
4The respondent communicated with the Tribunal on October 10, 2012 by way of fax, stating that she would not be able to attend for financial reasons. On October 11, 2012, the Tribunal wrote to the parties, confirming that the hearing would proceed as scheduled.
5Neither party was in attendance at the commencement of the scheduled hearing. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:30 a.m. before proceeding.
6At 10:30 a.m. the applicant was not in attendance nor had the applicant communicated with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend. I note that the respondent was not in attendance at this point either.
7In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed on the basis that the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of November, 2012.
“Signed by”
Maureen Doyle
Vice-chair