Stephenson v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 480

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marian Stephenson

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, City of Toronto, and Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: March 7, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 480

Indexed as: Stephenson v. Toronto Police Services Board

APPEARANCES

Marian Stephenson, Applicant ) No one appearing )

Toronto Police Services Board, City of Toronto, ) Darragh Meagher, And Chief of Police, Toronto Police Services, ) Counsel Respondents )

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on June 10, 2010 alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability. The applicant was a civilian employee with the respondent Toronto Police Services Board (“TPSB”). At the time of filing her Application, the applicant was represented by legal counsel.

2The applicant makes a number of allegations about the respondents’ failure to accommodate her medical conditions, essentially commencing in 2006 (although some pre-dated 2006), which eventually resulted in her electing to resign from her employment in October 2009. She alleges that this election was under duress and as a result of her medical conditions. Further, the applicant alleges that she immediately tried to rescind her resignation, but was denied from doing so by TPSB. On her Application form, the applicant identifies December 30, 2009 as being the date of the last event.

3The respondents filed a joint Response as well as a document book entitled “Motion to have the section 34 application dismissed for delay” (“the motion”) and a book of supporting documents and a brief of authorities. The applicant, through her counsel, filed a Response to a Request for Order During Proceedings responding to the issues in the respondents’ motion.

4A mediation before the Tribunal was held on May 19, 2011, but did not result in a settlement between the parties. A Notice of Confirmation of Hearing dated November 10, 2011 and a subsequent Amended Notice of Confirmation of Hearing dated November 15, 2011 (“the Notice”) was issued by the Tribunal to the parties scheduling a hearing for April 16, 17, and 18, 2012. Upon receipt of the Notice, the respondents’ counsel wrote to the Tribunal reminding it about the respondents’ outstanding motion and expressing surprise that it had not been addressed prior to scheduling the hearing.

5A Case Assessment Direction dated November 23, 2011 (“the November CAD”) was issued by the Tribunal stating that it would address the issue of delay and directed the applicant to advise within three days whether or not she wished to have an oral hearing. Subsequent to the issuance of the November CAD, the applicant’s counsel wrote to the Tribunal by letter dated December 7, 2011 advising that he and his firm no longer represented the applicant and provided the Tribunal with the applicant’s home address. The respondents’ counsel was copied on this letter.

6The Tribunal issued another Case Assessment Direction dated December 16, 2011 (“the December CAD”) in which it stated that it would schedule a half-day conference call hearing as it had not heard from the applicant. It issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing scheduling the conference call hearing for March 6, 2012 (“the conference call notice”) and providing call-in instructions. The December CAD and the conference call notice were sent to the applicant’s address as provided by her former counsel and were not returned. The last communication that the Tribunal received pertaining to the applicant, was the December 7, 2011 letter from the applicant’s former counsel.

7The respondents’ counsel wrote to the Tribunal on February 23, 2012, on which the applicant was copied, enclosing a decision for consideration during the hearing. I note that the first line of that correspondence specifically references that the conference call hearing was scheduled for March 6, 2012 at 1:30 pm.

8The conference call hearing was held on March 6, 2012 at 1:30 pm, as scheduled, and the respondents participated. The applicant did not call in or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal. In accordance with its normal practice, the Tribunal stood down the commencement of the hearing for 30 minutes, but the applicant still did not call into the conference call hearing. At 2:00 pm, the Tribunal dismissed the Application as abandoned as a result of the applicant’s failure to attend and advised the respondents that the April 2012 hearing dates were also cancelled.

9The Application is dismissed.