Schlusselberg v. Bagel World, 2012 HRTO 54

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rachel Schlusselberg

Applicant

-and-

2126724 Ontario Corp o/a Bagel World

Respondent

decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: January 10, 2012

Citation : 2012 HRTO 54

Indexed as: Schlusselberg v. Bagel World

1This matter was scheduled to proceed to a hearing on January 13, 2012. A Case Assessment Direction, dated December 19, 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 Procedure to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a witness list, witness statements, and copies of documents the parties intended 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 July 12, 2011. The Notice directed the parties to comply with their disclosure obligations by November 29, 2011. This Notice was sent by mail to the applicant’s former counsel, Moses Muyal, who advised the Tribunal by letter dated July 19, 2011, that the applicant was now represented by Gerald Shapiro. In addition to giving the Tribunal Mr. Shapiro’s contact information, Mr. Muyal also advised that his firm had passed on the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to Mr. Shapiro.

3The CAD directed the parties to comply with these requirements by 10 days from the date of the CAD (i.e., December 29, 2011) 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 complied with the direction to it in the CAD on December 22, 2011, by filing with the Tribunal the required material and delivering it to Mr. Shapiro. The applicant did not comply with her obligations. Neither she nor her representative made any effort to contact the Tribunal to request an extension or offer an explanation for any delay.

5On January 9, 2012, counsel for the respondent wrote to the Tribunal a letter, which he copied to counsel for the applicant, advising that he not received any material from the applicant. This letter enclosed a copy of the CAD. Referring to that document counsel for the respondent asked that the Application be dismissed as abandoned.

DECISION

6In 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.

7The 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 10 days of the CAD, her Application may be dismissed as abandoned. This deadline has passed. The applicant’s counsel was given further notice by the respondent that she had failed to comply with the Tribunal’s CAD and, even in the face of this, has remained silent.

8In 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 January 13, 2012 hearing date is cancelled.