Meenu Bhagat v. Workers United Ontario Council, 2012 HRTO 759

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Meenu Bhagat

Applicant

-and-

Workers United Ontario Council

Respondent

-and-

Sodexo Canada Ltd.

Intervenor

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: April 16, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 759

Indexed as: Bhagat v. Workers United Ontario Council

1This is an Application filed on July 27, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”).

2This matter is scheduled for hearing on April 30, 2012. A Case Assessment Direction dated March 22, 2012, (the “CAD”) alerted the applicant to the fact that she 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 which she intended to rely upon no later than 45 days prior to the hearing. It also appeared that she had not delivered to the respondent copies of all arguably relevant documents by the deadline for doing so.

3These obligations were originally set out in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing that went to the parties on November 18, 2011. The Notice directed the parties to comply with their disclosure obligations by December 12, 2011. This Notice was sent by mail to the applicant at the address provided in her Application, and has not been returned.

4The Tribunal received correspondence from the respondent on March 21, 2012, setting out some concerns with respect to preparation for the hearing. Among other things, it stated that the applicant did not comply with the obligation under Rule 16.1 to deliver to the respondent all documents which are arguably relevant to the issues in this Application. The applicant also did not file a Statement of Delivery with the Tribunal as required.

5The CAD directed the applicant to immediately deliver and file the materials required under Rules 16 and 17. It advised her that if she had not done so within 10 days of the date of the CAD, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

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.

8In light of the applicant’s failure to respond to directions from the Tribunal, I find that she has abandoned her Application. Accordingly, her Application is dismissed and the April 30, 2012 hearing date is cancelled.