R.H. v. Wee Watch Day Care Systems, 2013 HRTO 1775

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

R.H. by her Litigation Guardian M.D. Applicant

-and-

Wee Watch Day Care Systems and K.H. Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

R.H. by his Litigation Guardian M.D. Applicant

-and-

Wee Watch Day Care Systems and K.H. Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: October 22, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1775 Indexed as: R.H. v. Wee Watch Day Care Systems

APPEARANCES

R.H. and R.H., by their Litigation Guardian M.D., Applicants No one appearing

Wee Watch Day Care Systems, Respondent Gordon Bent, Counsel

K.H., Respondent Allison Armstrong, Representative

1These are two Applications filed by a mother on behalf of her children, a sister and brother, against the respondents on May 8, 2013, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services. Pursuant to Rule 3.11.1, the Tribunal has used the initials of the respondent K.H. to protect the identity of the children.

2The applicants allege that the respondent K.H., who provides child care services, terminated child care services for the children for discriminatory reasons because of the applicant’s father, who is also K.H.’s brother. He is also the applicants’ representative in these Applications. The applicants allege that when they contacted the respondent Wee Watch Day Care Systems, the applicants were told that the Code did not apply to that respondent.

3Separate Responses were filed by both respondents and both respondents deny that the services were terminated for discriminatory reasons. Both submit that the services were terminated because of safety concerns raised by K.H. about the applicant’s father and that the Applications were vexatiously filed against them.

4The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction dated July 17, 2013 (“CAD”) directing, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing would be scheduled to determine whether the Applications should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Applications, or part of the Applications, will succeed. The Tribunal determined that the summary hearing for the Applications would be heard together as the Applications are identical.

5On July 22, 2013, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Joint Summary Hearing (“the notice”) scheduling the summary hearing, by teleconference call, for October 21, 2013 (“the summary hearing”). The notice set out the call-in information for the summary hearing. The notice was sent to an address the applicant’s representative had advised the Tribunal, on May 29, 2013, to which the applicant and her representative would be moving effective June 1, 2013. Neither the notice nor the CAD was returned to the Tribunal as being undeliverable.

6The respondents participated in the summary hearing, but the applicants did not. Consistent with the Tribunal’s practices, the Tribunal held down the start of the hearing for 30 minutes. When the hearing reconvened at 10:00 a.m., the applicants still had not called in or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal, and the Applications were dismissed orally by the Tribunal at that time as being abandoned.

7I am satisfied that the applicants received timely and proper notice of the summary hearing. I was not aware of any indication that they would not be attending the hearing. In the absence of the applicants or any explanation for their failure to attend the hearing, the Applications are dismissed as abandoned.

8The respondents questioned whether or not the Tribunal has the ability to award costs. The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to award costs. See XY v. Ontario (Government and Consumer Services), 2012 HRTO 726 at para. 284.

ORDER

9The Applications are dismissed as abandoned.