Ana Monteiro v. CSDC Systems Inc. and Dan Mishra, 2013 HRTO 1297

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Ana Monteiro Applicant

-and-

CSDC Systems Inc. and Dan Mishra Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: July 25, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1297 Indexed as: Monteiro v. CSDC Systems Inc.

APPEARANCES

Ana Monteiro, Applicant No one appearing

CSDC Systems Inc. and Dan Mishra, Respondents Dan Mishra, Self-represented

1This Application was scheduled for hearing at the Tribunal’s hearing centre in Toronto on July 23, 2013. Mr. Mishra appeared at the hearing on his own behalf and on behalf of the corporate respondent. The applicant did not appear.

2The Application was filed on April 17, 2012. The Application indicated that the applicant was represented by Cathy Davis, a paralegal. The applicant subsequently asked the Tribunal to communicate directly with Ms. Davis and not to address correspondence to the applicant so that the respondents would not learn her address.

3The respondents filed a Response which was delivered to the applicant care of Ms. Davis.

4On June 8, 2012, Ms. Davis filed a Request for Order During Proceedings on the applicant's behalf, asking to amend the Application to include disability as a ground of alleged discrimination. That Request was granted by the Tribunal in an Interim Decision dated October 4, 2012, sent to the respondents and Ms. Davis.

5The Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing on February 21, 2013. It was sent to Ms. Davis and the respondents.

6On May 30, 2013, the respondents filed their hearing documents with the Tribunal and Ms. Davis. The applicant did not file any hearing documents but had previously filed documents with the Application.

7At the hearing, Mr. Mishra advised that he had recently attended a hearing at the Ontario Labour Relations Board involving a complaint by the applicant and that at that time she was represented by Ms. Davis.

8The available documents show that the Notice of Hearing was delivered to the applicant using the contact information that she asked the Tribunal to use. The applicant has not advised the Tribunal that she is no longer represented by Ms. Davis or asked the Tribunal to use any other contact information. There is no indication that any of the documents sent to Ms. Davis, including the Notice of Hearing were not delivered. I am therefore satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing.

9The applicant failed to attend the hearing and is accordingly deemed to have abandoned the Application.

Decision

10The Application is dismissed as abandoned.