Uens v. Counselling Services of Belleville & District, 2012 HRTO 723

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Uens

Applicant

-and-

Counselling Services of Belleville & District, Nicole Chevalier and Susan Seaman

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: April 11, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 723

Indexed as: Uens v. Counselling Services of Belleville & District

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on June 23, 2010.

2On August 11, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Mediation to the parties confirming that mediation of the Application would take place on November 3, 2011 at the Kingston Frontenac Public Library, 130 Johnson Street West, Boucher Room, Kingston, Ontario. The Notice was mailed to the applicant’s address provided in the Application and was not returned as undeliverable.

3By letter dated August 22, 2011, the respondents asked that the mediation date of November 3, 2011 be rescheduled and invited the applicant to contact them to discuss alternative dates for the mediation. By letter dated August 30, 2011, the respondents advised the Tribunal that the applicant had not contacted them to reschedule the mediation and asked that the Tribunal reschedule the mediation to one of a number of dates provided by the respondents.

4On October 12, 2011, the Tribunal issued a letter to the applicant and respondents cancelling the mediation scheduled for November 3, 2011 and asking the parties to indicate on which of five possible dates they would attend a rescheduled mediation. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s letter as directed.

5On October 20, 2011, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant requesting that she provide with mutually agreeable dates to reschedule the mediation and directed the applicant to advise the Tribunal of her intentions with respect to the Application. The letter was mailed to the applicant’s address provided in the Application and it directed her to respond by October 30, 2011. The applicant did not provide a response by this date.

6After sending its letter of October 20, 2011, the Tribunal learned that there was an error in the applicant’s mailing address and that her postal code was incorrect.

7The Tribunal issued another letter to the applicant on February 6, 2012, using the applicant’s correct postal code. In its letter, the Tribunal asked the applicant to provide available dates for a rescheduled mediation. and directed her to advise the Tribunal of her intentions with respect to the Application. The letter requested that the applicant provide a response by February 21, 2012, failing which, it stated that the Application might be deemed abandoned. The applicant did not provide a response by February 21, 2012.

8As of the date of this Decision the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal and the Tribunal’s correspondence to her of October 20, 2011 and February 6, 2012 has not been returned.

9In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application and the Application is dismissed.