Rosa Clinton v. OLG Casino Brantford, 2012 HRTO 2298

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rosa Clinton

Applicant

-and-

OLG Casino Brantford

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: December 6, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2298

Indexed as: Clinton v. OLG Casino Brantford

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on June 16, 2010.

2In Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 2381 issued December 1, 2010, the Tribunal deferred proceeding with this Application pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

3On September 29, 2011 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant’s representative by regular mail at the address provided in the Application. The applicant was asked to inform the Registrar, in writing, within 30 days of the date of the letter whether the grievance proceedings remained ongoing and, if possible, to indicate when they were expected to be completed. The letter went on to warn the applicant that failure to provide the requested information might result in the Tribunal dismissing the Application as abandoned. The Tribunal did not receive a response to its letter sent to the applicant’s representative, and the letter was not returned as undeliverable.

4On May 28, 2012, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant by regular mail, again asking the applicant to inform the Registrar in writing within 30 days of the date of the letter whether the grievance proceedings remained ongoing and, if possible, to indicate when they were expected to be completed. The letter also warned the applicant that failure to provide the requested information might result in the Tribunal dismissing the Applicant as abandoned. The Tribunal’s May 28, 2012, letter to the applicant was returned as undeliverable.

5On August 20, 2012, the Tribunal sent its May 28, 2009 correspondence to both the applicant and her representative by email, at the email addresses provided in the Application. While the Tribunal’s email to the applicant was returned as undeliverable, the Tribunal’s email to the applicant’s representative was not returned as undeliverable, and the Tribunal did not receive a response to its email to the applicant’s representative.

6In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application and the Application is dismissed.