HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Margo Foster
Applicant
-and-
Ontario Trillium Foundation
Respondent
Decision
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Foster v. Ontario Trillium Foundation
APPEARANCES
) Margo Foster, Applicant ) not in attendance ) ) Ontario Trillium Foundation, Respondent ) Patricia Murray, Counsel )
1This is an Application filed pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In this Application the applicant alleges that her right to be free of discrimination in employment based on race was infringed by the respondent.
2The Tribunal on its own initiative directed that a summary hearing be held by conference call to consider whether this Application had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant would be unable to establish a link between the allegations made and the Code protected ground of race that she has relied upon.
3Rules 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure read as follows:
19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.
19A.2 Rules 16 and 17 do not apply to summary hearings. The Tribunal may give directions about steps the parties must take prior to the summary hearing, including disclosure or witness statements.
4At the time and place set for the summary hearing the respondent was in attendance but the applicant was not. In accordance with the Tribunal’s usual practice the hearing did not proceed for 30 minutes in the hope that the applicant would attend. At 2:00 p.m. the applicant had still not appeared.
5I am satisfied that the applicant had received timely and adequate Notice of Hearing and has chosen not to attend. The applicant was consulted about the dates and indeed a review of the file indicates that the date chosen, March 28, 2012 was one of two dates the applicant indicated she could attend. A Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the applicant, as well as the respondent on January 19, 2012. There is no indication that the applicant did not receive this Notice.
6In all of the circumstances I find that the applicant has abandoned her Application and for that reason it must be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of March, 2012.
“signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair