Vihos v. Hudson's Bay Company, 2012 HRTO 95

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Evangeline Vihos Applicant

-and-

Hudson's Bay Company Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie Date: January 16, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 95 Indexed as: Vihos v. Hudson's Bay Company

APPEARANCES

Hudson's Bay Company, Respondent: Meghan Ferguson, Counsel

1Evangeline Vihos filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

2The hearing of the Application was scheduled for January 11, 2012. The applicant did not show up at the hearing. I dismissed the Application on the basis of abandonment for the reasons that follow.

3A Notice of Confirmation of Hearing was issued on June 20, 2011. A Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") was issued on December 21, 2011, instructing the applicant to comply with the disclosure requirements set out in the Tribunal's Rules. A further CAD was issued on January 6, 2012, setting out the consequences of the failure to comply with the applicant's disclosure requirements.

4On January 9, 2012, the applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing. On January 10, 2012, I issued a decision dismissing the adjournment request (2012 HRTO 43). In that decision, I held that the applicant had not provided detailed reasons for her request. This decision was emailed to the applicant and she responded to the email. In her email she stated that she had provided reasons for her adjournment request. The email that she attached had not been copied to the respondent and was therefore not part of the record when the decision was made. The justification provided by the applicant was that she could not focus on the Application because of family-related issues and responsibilities. This does not constitute an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment. The applicant was advised by email that the hearing would proceed on January 11, 2012.

5I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing and was aware that it would proceed on January 11, 2012. The applicant did not attend the hearing. She did not communicate with the Tribunal to provide a further justification for her failure to attend.

6In the circumstances, I dismissed the Application on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the Application.

Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of January, 2012.

"Signed by"

__________________________________ Ian R. Mackenzie Vice-chair