Simpson v. Revera Long Term Care Inc. o/a Rose Garden Villa, 2012 HRTO 867

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Darlene Simpson

Applicant

-and-

Revera Long Term Care Inc. o/a Rose Garden Villa and

CAW Local 2458

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: May 1, 2012,

Citation: 2012 HRTO 867

Indexed as: Simpson v. Revera Long Term Care Inc. o/a Rose Garden Villa

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 March 24, 2011.

2The respondents filed Responses, denying discrimination. They also filed Requests for Order During Proceedings (RFOPs), requesting that a Summary Hearing be scheduled. The applicant opposed the Request.

3The Tribunal granted the respondents’ Request for a summary hearing in a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) on July 12, 2011. The CAD directed that a half-day summary hearing by telephone be scheduled. The CAD itself does not indicate what date will be scheduled.

4Prior to any communication to the parties regarding a scheduled date for the summary hearing, the Tribunal received a letter from the applicant’s physician, asking the Tribunal to “change the date to accommodate my patient, so that she can participate when she is better”.

5On October 28, 2011, the Tribunal issued a further CAD, directing the applicant to provide a copy of the above-noted physician’s letter to the respondent and directing her, if she sought a delay of the summary hearing, to file an RFOP setting out the information required “including the anticipated length of any delay being sought and the reasons for the request” within 14 days of the CAD. The CAD also directed that the respondents would have the opportunity to file any Response to the RFOP within the usual time frame.

6The Tribunal received a letter dated November 25, 2011 from the applicant, indicating that she would have an appointment with her doctor on December 22, 2011, and that she would be able to update “Human Rights with a doctor’s note at that time”.

7The Tribunal received no further communication from the applicant.

8On January 10, 2012, the Tribunal issued a further CAD in this matter, directing the applicant to provide to the respondents a copy of the above-noted November 25, 2011 letter, if she had not already done so. The CAD referred her again to the direction given in the October 28, 2011 CAD that she should file an RFOP if she was seeking a delay in the scheduling of the summary hearing and directed her to provide any supporting medical documentation to the Tribunal. It also directed her to provide any additional submissions in support of her request that her personal medical documentation not be shared with the respondent, by January 24, 2012. The CAD directed that if the applicant did not file an RFOP by January 24, 2012, the Tribunal may schedule the hearing by conference call as previously directed.

9The Tribunal has received no RFOP from the applicant.

10On February 7, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties, notifying them that a summary hearing was scheduled to take place by telephone on April 30, 2012 from 9:30 to 12:30 and providing them with the telephone number and information necessary to participate in the telephone summary hearing. The Notice advised the parties of the necessary steps to take if they were unable to attend the hearing, and noted that these steps were to be completed within 14 days of the Notice of Summary Hearing. The Notice also advised the parties of the possible consequences of failing to attend the hearing, including the possibility that the Tribunal may “dismiss the Application as abandoned if the applicant fails to attend”. The Notice was delivered to the applicant at the last address provided by the applicant to the Tribunal and was not returned as undeliverable.

11I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing.

12The applicant was not in attendance at the commencement of the scheduled hearing. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. before proceeding.

13At 10:00 a.m. the applicant was not in attendance nor had the applicant communicated with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend.

14In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed on the basis that the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.