Pastor v. Datex Billing Services Inc., 2012 HRTO 246

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ashley Pastor

Applicant

-and-

Datex Billing Services Inc.

Respondent

decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 3, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 246

Indexed as: Pastor v. Datex Billing Services Inc.

1This matter was scheduled to proceed to a hearing on February 6 and 7, 2012. A Case Assessment Direction, dated January 12, 2011 (the “CAD”), alerted the parties to the fact that they had failed to comply with the obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice. These Rules require each party to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a witness list, witness statements, and copies of documents the party intends to rely upon no later than 45 days prior to the hearing.

2These obligations were originally set out in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing that went to the parties on June 29, 2011. The Notice directed the parties to comply with their disclosure obligations by December 23, 2011. This was not done.

3The CAD directed the parties to comply with these requirements within seven days from the date of the CAD (i.e., January 19, 2012), failing which there would be serious consequences to them. The applicant was specifically advised that if she did not comply with this direction, her Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

4The respondent partially complied with the direction to it in the CAD on January 18, 2012, by filing with the Tribunal the required material. It is not clear whether this material was delivered to the applicant. The applicant did not comply with her obligations, nor did she contact the Tribunal to request an extension. Indeed, as of the date of this Decision, the applicant has not provided any material for the upcoming hearing.

DECISION

5In C.D. v. Wal-Mart Canada Inc., 2010 HRTO 426, the Tribunal explained, at para. 7:

The exchange of documents (Rule 16) and witness statements (Rule 17) 45 days prior to the hearing is a critical part of the Tribunal’s process. It ensures that each party fully understands the other side’s case and enables the Tribunal to make Case Assessment Directions to structure the hearing.

6The applicant was directed in two separate documents from the Tribunal to comply with the requirements under Rules 16 and 17. The CAD advised the applicant that if she did not comply within seven (7) days of the CAD, her Application may be dismissed as abandoned. This deadline has passed.

7In light of the applicant’s persistent failure to respond to direction from the Tribunal, I find that she has abandoned her Application. Accordingly, her Application is dismissed and the February 6 and 7, 2012 hearing dates cancelled.