Bruce v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2012 HRTO 426

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Janet Bruce Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: February 28, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 426 Indexed as: Bruce v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

APPEARANCES

Janet Bruce, Applicant ) Laura Lee Smith, Representative Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services ) Brian Loewen, Counsel

1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (‘the Code”).

2Pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction dated October 27, 2011, the Tribunal granted the respondent’s Request for Summary Hearing and directed that a summary hearing be convened pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application would succeed. In its Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal directed that the summary hearing would proceed by way of teleconference and advised the parties that a Notice of Summary Hearing would be sent to them by the Registrar’s office.

3At the request of the applicant and as an accommodation to her the Registrar changed the proposed teleconference hearing into an “in-person” hearing.

4The Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the parties on December 8, 2011 advising the parties that the “in-person” summary hearing would commence at 9:30 a.m. on February 22, 2011 at the Tribunal’s hearing centre at 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor, Toronto, Ontario. The Notice of Summary Hearing was mailed to the applicant at the address provided by her to the Tribunal.

5On February 8, 2012 the applicant’s representative served on the respondent and filed with the Tribunal the case law that she intended to rely on “for the purpose of the summary hearing”.

6On February 21, 2012, the applicant requested that the summary hearing scheduled for February 22, 2012 be adjourned pending the parties’ deliberations on whether the Application should be deferred to “an action” that recently had been filed at the Superior Court of Justice by the applicant

7By Interim Decision dated February 21, 2012 the Tribunal denied the adjournment request and on the same day the Registrar advised the applicant and her representative by e-mail, at the respective addresses provided by them, that the request had been denied.

8The Summary Hearing was convened at the Tribunal’s hearing centre on February 22, 2012 at the scheduled time. The respondent’s representative was present at the summary hearing as was the representative of the applicant. The applicant did not appear at the hearing.

9The applicant’s representative indicated that the applicant was no longer communicating with her and she could provide no explanation for the failure of the applicant to attend the hearing.

10I am satisfied that the applicant received notice of the summary hearing and notice that the adjournment request was denied. There was no indication that the applicant would not be attending the hearing. In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for her failure to attend the hearing, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

ORDER

11The Application is dismissed.