Ann-Marie Dunford v. The Office Pub Lounge and Nagulan Nadesalingam, 2012 HRTO 2361

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Ann-Marie Dunford Applicant

-and-

The Office Pub Lounge and Nagulan Nadesalingam Respondents

Decision

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: December 18, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2361 Indexed as: Dunford v. The Office Pub Lounge

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of age.

2A mediation was scheduled for April 30, 2012. The applicant failed to appear at the mediation and failed to advise the Tribunal that she could not attend.

3By Notice of Confirmation of Hearing dated May 15, 2012, the matter was set down for hearing on December 21, 2012. The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing directed the parties to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure by exchanging with one another and filing with the Tribunal the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing, a list of their witnesses and a summary of their witnesses’ anticipated evidence by no later than November 6, 2012. Both parties failed to provide their pre-hearing documents.

4In a December 6, 2012 Case Assessment Direction (the “CAD”), the Tribunal directed the parties to provide their required hearing materials immediately, and in any event, within seven (7) days of the date of the CAD – December 13, 2012. The parties were advised there were serious consequences for the case if they failed to meet their obligations. The respondents were advised the Tribunal may take any or all of the steps in Rule 5, including not permitting them to call any witnesses at the hearing. The applicant was advised the Application may be dismissed as abandoned. The CAD was sent to the parties electronically and by regular mail.

5The individual respondent provided his required materials on December 7, 2012. It is unclear whether the materials were also provided on behalf of the Office Pub Lounge.

6On December 10, 2012, the applicant asked the Tribunal to send the CAD to her in a different electronic format as she was having difficulty opening the attachment. The Tribunal did so and confirmed with the applicant that the CAD had also been mailed to her on December 6, 2012.

7The applicant did not file the materials as required by December 13, 2012, and did not contact the Tribunal to advise the reason for her failure to comply with the direction set out in the CAD. In the circumstances, it appears that the applicant does not intend to proceed with the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

ORDER

8The Application is dismissed as abandoned and the hearing date of December 21, 2012 is cancelled.