Whitney Brook Sly v. 3957799 Canada Inc., 2012 HRTO 931

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Whitney Brook Sly

Applicant

-and-

3957799 Canada Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: May 10, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 931

Indexed as: Sly v. 3957799 Canada Inc.

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 October 15, 2010.

2On February 23, 2012 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties confirming that the hearing of the Application would take place on October 12, 2012.

3On March 6, 2012 the Tribunal sent an email to the parties indicating that the respondent had requested that the hearing be rescheduled. This email advised that the respondent’s request was granted and that the October 12, 2012 hearing was cancelled. The email directed the applicant to respond to the Registrar to advise if she was available for a rescheduled hearing on a date between December 1-15, 2012.The email directed the applicant to provide a response by March 12, 2012. This email also requested that the applicant provide an updated telephone number where she could be reached as the one on file was no longer in service. The applicant did not respond to this email.

4On March 14, 2012 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, attaching a copy of its March 6, 2012 email to the parties. The letter directed the applicant to confirm her intentions with respect to the Application and to respond to the Tribunal by March 28, 2012. The letter noted that the Tribunal may finally determine an Application without further notice to any person who cannot be contacted by the Tribunal according to the contact information provided to the Tribunal by that person. The letter was mailed to the applicant’s address provided in the Application but was returned to the Tribunal as “Moved”.

5On April 20, 2012 the Tribunal sent an email to the applicant indicating that it had been unsuccessful in rescheduling the hearing as mail sent to the applicant was returned, there was no reply to email sent to the applicant, and the applicant’s phone was disconnected. The email directed the applicant to provide in writing to all parties her contact information within 7 days, and indicated that if she failed to comply, her Application may be deemed to have been abandoned.

6As of the date of this Decision the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal.

7In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application and the Application is dismissed.