Danial v. Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture, 2013 HRTO 261

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Neveen Danial Applicant

-and-

Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: February 13, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 261 Indexed as: Danial v. Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of race, ethnic origin, age and reprisal.

2By Notice of Confirmation of Hearing (the "Notice of Hearing") dated July 23, 2012, the matter was set down for hearing on March 1, 2013. The Notice of Hearing directed the parties to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. In particular, the Notice of Hearing directed the parties to deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal a list of arguably relevant documents by August 13, 2012. It also directed the parties to exchange with one another and file with the Tribunal the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing, a list of their witnesses and a summary of their witnesses' anticipated evidence (the "Pre-Hearing Materials") by no later than January 15, 2013.

3The respondent filed its list of documents on August 14, 2012. The applicant did not file her list of documents.

4In a November 28, 2012 Case Assessment Direction (the "First CAD"), the Tribunal directed the applicant to deliver her list of relevant documents within seven (7) days of the First CAD and if she had no relevant documents, to confirm that fact with the respondent and the Tribunal by the same date. The First CAD was sent to the applicant electronically and by regular mail. The applicant failed to comply with this direction.

5In a January 24, 2013 Case Assessment Direction (the "Second CAD"), the Tribunal directed the parties to provide their required Pre-Hearing Materials immediately, and in any event, within seven (7) days of the date of the Second CAD. The parties were advised there were serious consequences for the case if they failed to meet their obligations. The respondent was advised the Tribunal may take any or all of the steps in Rule 5, including not permitting it to call any witnesses at the hearing. The applicant was advised the Application may be dismissed as abandoned. The Second CAD was sent to the parties electronically and by regular mail.

6The respondent filed its pre-hearing documents on February 1, 2013. The applicant did not file her pre-hearing documents.

7On February 1, 2013, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings ("RFOP") seeking a dismissal of the Application because of the applicant's failure to comply with the First CAD.

8The applicant has not complied with any of her pre-hearing obligations nor has she complied with the directions set out in both CADs. In the circumstances, it appears that the applicant does not intend to proceed with the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

ORDER

9The Application is dismissed as abandoned and the hearing date of March 1, 2013 is cancelled.