Jones v. Just Eddies, 2014 HRTO 1282

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Kayla Jones

Applicant

-and-

Just Eddies

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: August 29, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1282

Indexed as: Jones v. Just Eddies

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment and contracts contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

2The respondent did not file a Response to the Application. Accordingly, in Kayla Jones v. Just Eddies, 2014 HRTO 780, an earlier Interim Decision in this matter, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application; to have waived all rights to notice or participation in these proceedings; and ordered that the respondent was not entitled to further notice with respect to the Application.

3In these circumstances, the Tribunal will not generally make a decision based upon the material filed by the applicant without first providing an applicant with an opportunity to indicate whether he or she wishes to file further materials and/or make oral submissions. Accordingly, the Tribunal indicated that it would schedule a one-hour case management conference call to set out a timetable and discuss the following:

a. Does the applicant wish to have an oral hearing or have the Tribunal decide the Application based upon written materials filed?

b. Does the applicant intend to call witnesses? Do these witnesses need to testify in person or can they give their evidence over the telephone, in writing or in some other format?

c. What documents does the applicant intend to rely upon?

d. What are the issues raised in the Application?

e. What remedies is the applicant seeking in the event that the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s rights under the Code were infringed? What evidence does the applicant intend to rely upon in support of these remedies?

f. Does the applicant plan to make any legal submissions or rely on any case law?

4The Tribunal scheduled the case conference for July 14, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. by teleconference with this writer presiding. The applicant joined the call on time. I discussed the purpose of the call with the applicant and we began to discuss the issues set out in paragraph 3, above. After dealing with the first three questions, the applicant began to become upset and stated that she was not sure if she wanted to proceed with this matter, as she found it difficult to deal with. I stated that I did not want her to feel that she had to make that decision during the call. Accordingly, I suggested that we work through the questions and if she later decided that she wished to withdraw the Application, then she would be free to do that. Shortly afterward, the applicant stated that she did not wish to proceed and hung up her phone, leaving the conference call.

5In these circumstances, I found it appropriate to provide the applicant with an opportunity to confirm her intentions regarding this Application. Consequently, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction, dated July 14, 2014, directing the applicant to either file a Request to Withdraw (Form 9) or state that she wishes the Application to continue. In the Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal also advised the applicant that the Tribunal may dismiss the Application as abandoned should she not state her intentions to the Tribunal in this time period.

6As of the date of this Decision, the applicant has not communicated her intentions regarding the Application to the Tribunal. In these circumstances, I find that the applicant has abandoned the Application.

7The Application is dismissed.