Potrzebowski v. Holub, 2012 HRTO 973

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Ursula Potrzebowski Applicant

-and-

Petr Holub Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price Date: May 14, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 973 Indexed as: Potrzebowski v. Holub

1This is an Application under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (‘the Code”), alleging that the respondent discriminated against and/or harassed the applicant with respect to employment on the basis of her Polish origins while he was a member of the board of directors of the condominium corporation where the applicant worked as a property manager.

2A hearing of the Application was originally scheduled for January 23, 24 and 25, 2012. However, I adjourned that hearing on the morning of January 23, 2012, in the interest of natural justice, based on my finding that the terms of a June 18, 2009 Order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Order”), which prevented the respondent from communicating with the applicant in any manner or even being in the same room with her, effectively prevented the respondent from participating in the hearing of the Application: 2012 HRTO 184, at paras. 4-10.

3Further, in the January 24, 2012 Interim Decision in this matter, at paras. 11-12, I held that the hearing of the Application could not proceed unless and until the terms of the Order were either no longer in effect or had been varied by the Court so as to allow the respondent to communicate with the applicant and to be in her physical presence for the purposes of the hearing of the Application. For the reasons given in the Interim Decision, I also found that responsibility for varying the Order lay with the applicant and made the following directions in that regard:

If the applicant wishes to proceed with her Application to the Tribunal, then, within 90 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant should seek to have the Order varied by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice so as to allow the respondent to participate in the hearing of the Application before the Tribunal. The respondent is directed to co-operate with the applicant’s efforts to have the Order varied to allow for his participation in the hearing of the Application.

The applicant is directed to inform the Tribunal and the respondent, in writing, that she has succeeded in having the Order varied within ten (10) days of doing so. At that time, the applicant should enclose documentation that confirms that the Order has been varied so as to allow the respondent to participate in the hearing of the Application.

Upon receipt of such written confirmation and documentation from the applicant, the Tribunal will reschedule the hearing in this matter.

If the applicant fails to comply with the above-noted directions within the time frames identified above, then her Application may be dismissed by the Tribunal as abandoned.

4More than 10 days have passed since the expiry of the deadline by which the applicant was to have informed the Tribunal, in writing, that she succeeded in having the Order varied so as to allow the respondent to participate in the hearing of her Application. The applicant has not done so. Nor has the applicant communicated with the Tribunal in any way since the January 2012 hearing was adjourned. In the circumstances, it appears that the applicant has abandoned the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

ORDER

5The Application is dismissed.