Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Roberta Orban
Applicant
-and-
Experimetal Jewellery Inc.
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley
Indexed as: Orban v. Experimetal Jewellery Inc.
APPEARANCES
Roberta Orban, Applicant
No one appearing
Experimetal Jewellery Inc., Respondent
Peigi Ross, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and reprisal.
2On June 25, 2012, I made an oral ruling dismissing this Application, with reasons to follow. These are those reasons.
THE Case assessment direction
3On December 19, 2011, a Confirmation of Hearing notice (the “Notice”) was sent to the parties by mail. The Notice sent to the applicant was returned to the Tribunal marked “RETURN TO SENDER No Longer Lives here”. On January 11, 2012, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant by email reminding her of the obligation on parties to keep the Tribunal advised of current contact information and attaching a copy of the Notice. That email was not returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable.
4On June 8, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (the “CAD”) directing the applicant to comply with her obligations to disclose relevant evidence and witness statements under Rules 16 and 17 and noted that “if the applicant has not done so within 7 days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned”. The CAD also confirmed the hearing was scheduled for June 25, 2012.
5The applicant responded to the CAD later on June 8 by email stating, “I have provided all information required several months ago”.
6The Registrar responded by email that same day, setting out once more the applicant’s obligations under Rules 16 and 17.
7The applicant did not comply with the CAD and did not provide her disclosure prior to the hearing on June 25, 2012.
the hearing
8On June 25, 2012, the applicant was not present at 9:30 a.m. when the hearing was scheduled to start. As is the Tribunal’s practice, I stood down the hearing for half an hour.
9I reviewed the file and I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of hearing. Although the applicant did not receive the Notice sent by mail in December 2011, the Notice was then sent to her by email in January 2012 and that email was not returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable. Moreover, the applicant received and responded to the CAD issued on June 8, 2012 which was sent to the same email address. I conclude that the applicant had notice of the hearing no later than January 11, 2012. At 10:00 a.m. the applicant was still not present nor had she advised the Tribunal of any reason why she could not attend the hearing.
10Accordingly, this Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of June, 2013.
“Signed by”
Catherine Bickley
Member