Neathly v. University Health Network, 2013 HRTO 868

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Elaine Neathly Applicant

-and-

University Health Network Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: May 21, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 868 Indexed as: Neathly v. University Health Network

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 on the basis of disability and that the respondent reprised against the applicant because she had raised Code-related issues.

2The Application was filed on November 8, 2012. On review of the Application it appeared to the Tribunal that the Application might not be within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the events that it related to occurred more than one year before the Application was filed and because it was not clear that the Application related to any act of discrimination potentially covered by the Code.

3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the Application and invited the applicant to make submissions about whether the Application should be dismissed because it was not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Notice of Intent to Dismiss advised that submissions were to be sent by February 25, 2013.

4On February 21, 2013, the applicant sent a letter to the Tribunal asking for an extension of time. The Tribunal granted the request and extended the time for submissions to March 18, 2013.

5On March 14, 2013, the applicant asked for a further time extension. This request was granted and the time for receipt of submissions was extended to April 2, 2013.

6The applicant contacted the Tribunal on April 2, 2013 and asked that the Application be put on hold until further notice. She indicated that she wished to file a statement of claim.

7The Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant dated April 10, 2013. It indicated that the Tribunal does not permit Applications to be put on hold indefinitely. The applicant was advised that the time for filing submissions was extended to April 29, 2013 and that no further extensions would be granted unless there were exceptional circumstances.

8The applicant has not communicated further with the Tribunal.

DECISION

9It appears that the applicant has decided to abandon the Application and it is dismissed on that basis.