Gaudreault v. S & B Dentistry Corporation, 2013 HRTO 1885

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Angelica Gaudreault Applicant

-and-

S & B Dentistry Corporation Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: November 13, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1885 Indexed as: Gaudreault v. S & B Dentistry Corporation

1This Decision addresses whether this Application should be dismissed as abandoned.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on August 15, 2012. The applicant provided a mailing address and email address, but also identified alternative contact information and the best way to communicate with the alternate contact person, which the applicant identified as regular mail. The Application states that where alternative contact information is completed and provided to the Tribunal, all correspondence will be sent to the applicant in care of the alternative contact.

3On September 6, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer. The Tribunal stated that it had determined that it may be appropriate to defer the consideration of the Application pending the resolution of another legal proceeding and sought submissions from the parties regarding the same. The applicant did not file submissions in response to the Notice.

4On October 25, 2012, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 2036 deferring the Application pending the completion of an ESA proceeding (a claim for termination and severance pay to the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41).

5On September 4, 2013, the Tribunal delivered a letter to the alternative contact person for the applicant. The subject line referenced the deferred Application and asked that the applicant advise the Tribunal of the status of the other legal proceeding. The letter further stated in bold type:

The Applicant is required to advise the HRTO whether the other ESA process is still ongoing and, if possible, when it is expected to be completed, within 30 days of the date of this letter. If the applicant fails to do so, the HRTO may dismiss the Application as abandoned.

6The letter was sent by regular mail to the applicant care of her alternative contact. No response was received within the time frame identified.

7On October 11, 2013, the Registrar sent a further letter to the applicant attaching another copy of the September 4, 2013 correspondence. The letter stated in part:

On review the Tribunal notes that it sent the letter dated September 4, 2013 via regular mail to you as your Application (Form 1) indicated that regular mail was your preferred method of contact. The Tribunal shall send the Registrar’s letter and the HRTO’s letter dated September 4, 2013 by regular mail and email.

Under the circumstances the HRTO will delay reviewing the application for abandonment, until October 21, 2013, in accordance with the HRTO’s letter dated September, 2013.

If you wish to withdraw this application, you may file a Request to Withdraw (Form 9).

The remaining requirements in the HRTO’s letter September 4, 2013 remain as stated.

8A copy of the letter was sent by mail and email to the applicant care of the alternative contact and sent directly to the applicant by email.

9To date the applicant has not responded to the correspondence or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal. In addition, none of the copies sent by mail or email have been returned as undeliverable.

10I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the above referenced correspondence including that a failure to respond may result in the Tribunal dismissing the Application as abandoned.

11Having regard to the foregoing, including the applicant’s failure to respond, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

12A copy of this Decision will be delivered to the applicant directly by mail and email and to the alternative contact of the applicant by mail and email.