Lam v. Suncor Energy Products, 2013 HRTO 2068

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sharon Lam

Applicant

-and-

Suncor Energy Products, Charles Long and Robert Ruscica

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: December 13, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 2068

Indexed as: Lam v. Suncor Energy Products

1This Decision is written in anticipation of the hearing in this matter, which is scheduled to proceed on Tuesday, December 17, 2013 commencing at 9:30 a.m.

2In my previous Interim Decision dated December 6, 2013 (2013 HRTO 2031) the applicant was directed to confirm her intention to attend the hearing by no later than noon on Friday, December 13, 2013. This deadline has come and gone, once again without any communication from the applicant. As a result, as stated in my Interim Decision, the hearing is cancelled and this Application is dismissed as abandoned.

3The basis for this Decision is as follows. By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated November 14, 2013, it was noted that the applicant was not in compliance with her pre-hearing obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In particular, she had not filed a list of the witnesses she intended to call at the hearing, a statement of each witness’ evidence, or the documents upon which she intended to rely.

4In the CAD, she was directed to confirm whether she intended to testify herself as a witness and if the information in her Application represented a statement of her evidence. She further was asked to confirm whether she intended to call any other witnesses to testify at the hearing, and in particular her son who was present at the relevant time, and if so, to provide statements of their evidence. She also was directed to advise whether there were any documents upon which she intended to rely at the hearing, and if so, to file them with the Tribunal. The applicant was directed to do this within 14 calendar days of the date of the CAD, or by November 28, 2013.

5No response was received from the applicant to the directions given by the Tribunal in this CAD. Instead, by e-mail dated December 1, 2013, the applicant requested that the hearing on December 17, 2013 be re-scheduled to a later date in 2014 “due to unforeseen family matters”. No further information was provided by the applicant as to the nature of these unforeseen family matters or why they prevented her from attending the hearing. Further, this e-mail did not address the applicant’s non-compliance with her pre-hearing obligations under the Rules or the directions given in the CAD.

6By letter dated December 3, 2013, the Tribunal wrote to the parties and directed the applicant to provide in writing further details in support of her request for adjournment, and to explain what unforeseen family matters have arisen and why this prevents her ability to appear at the hearing. The applicant also was asked to explain her failure to comply with the CAD. The applicant was directed to provide this information by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, December 4, 2013.

7On December 4, 2013 at 4:44 p.m., the Tribunal received an e-mail from the applicant in response to its correspondence, however there was no information from the applicant contained in this e-mail. The Tribunal replied at 4:55 p.m. to advise the applicant that it was in receipt of her e-mail, but that the content of her e-mail appeared to be empty. The applicant was asked to confirm if she was attempting to deliver a response or attachment and, if so, to re-send. No further communication was received from the applicant.

8By my prior Interim Decision dated December 6, 2013, the applicant’s request for an adjournment was denied.

9Further, I stated in the Interim Decision that I was not prepared to put the respondents to further inconvenience if the applicant did not intend to attend the hearing on December 17, 2013. As a result, by noon on Friday, December 13, 2013, I ordered the applicant to confirm in writing to the Tribunal and the respondents that she intended to attend the hearing. If no such confirmation was received by that time, I stated that the hearing would be cancelled and the Application dismissed as abandoned.

10As stated above, no confirmation was received from the applicant by the deadline of noon on December 13, 2013.

ORDER

11For the foregoing reasons, the hearing currently scheduled for December 17, 2013 is cancelled and the Application is dismissed as abandoned.