Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Antonia Balloi
Applicant
-and-
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Balloi v. Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
1This Case Assessment Direction provides direction for the future handling of this Application. The history of the Tribunal’s attempts to process the Application is set out in a series of earlier Case Assessment Directions.
2Most recently, the applicant was required to provide an explanation for her failure to participate in the telephone conference call hearing on March 18, 2013. The applicant was to provide this explanation by April 25, 2013.
3The applicant sent a communication to the Tribunal that is dated April 25, 2013. However, as it was sent after hours on Friday, April 26, 2013, it was not received until April 29.
4This communication relies on the applicant’s previous communications and restates her position that she cannot participate in a hearing because of her mental health state and the stressful and time consuming care of her mother.
5The only medical information the applicant has sent in support of her contention that she is unable to participate in the Tribunal’s process is a letter dated February 1, 2013 from Dr. Armstrong, a psychiatrist, who indicates in the letter that he has not seen the applicant for more than six months but believes that “she may have trouble functioning on the hearing date that has been set aside.”
6According to the April 25, 2013 communication, the applicant was unclear about the purpose of the telephone conference call. I note that the purpose of the telephone conference call hearing was described in the March 11, 2013 Case Assessment Direction:
In addition to any other matters the parties may wish to discuss, the following matters will be discussed at the telephone conference call:
Whether the applicant intends to rely on any documents other than those already filed by the applicant and the respondents
A timetable for how the Application will be dealt with
Clarification of how the respondents should ensure delivery of documents to the applicant
Discussion of settlement options.
7The applicant has asked that the entire matter be adjourned to October 2013. However, she has not explained what will have happened by that time that will allow her to participate in the Tribunal’s process or why such a lengthy adjournment is necessary.
8At this time I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided an adequate explanation for her failure to participate in the March 18, 2013 telephone conference call hearing. I am also satisfied that it cannot be said that the applicant has abandoned the Application. However, the manner in which the applicant has behaved raises a question of whether the applicant has abused the Tribunal’s process and whether the Application should be dismissed as an abuse of process.
9The Registrar will schedule a half day telephone conference call hearing.
10The purpose of this conference call hearing is to determine:
If the Application should be dismissed as an abuse of process; and
If the Application is not dismissed as an abuse of process,
Whether the applicant intends to rely on any documents other than those already filed by the applicant and the respondents
Establishment of a timetable for how the Application will be dealt with.
11If the applicant fails to participate in the telephone conference call, the Application may be dismissed as an abuse of the Tribunal’s process.
Dated at Toronto, this 16^th^ day of May, 2013.
“signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair
CORRECTION
The Interim Decision dated May 16, 2013 contains a typographical error in paragraph 9.
Paragraph 9 should read “The Registrar will schedule a half day telephone conference call hearing”.
The Interim Decision is amended accordingly.
Dated at Toronto, this 28^th^ day of May, 2013.
“signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair