Penny Nystedt v. March of Dimes Canada, 2014 HRTO 1382

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Penny Nystedt

Applicant

-and-

March of Dimes Canada

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: September 17, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1382 Indexed as: Nystedt v. March of Dimes Canada

APPEARANCES

Penny Nystedt, Applicant No one appearing

March of Dimes Canada, Respondent Blair McCreadie, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on April 11, 2014. The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction on July 15, 2014, indicating that it would hold a summary hearing by teleconference to determine whether the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

2On July 28, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties confirming that the summary hearing of the Application would take place by teleconference on September 16, 2014, commencing at 1:30 p.m. The Notice was mailed to the applicant’s representative, at the address provided by her to the Tribunal, and was not returned as undeliverable. Moreover, counsel for the respondent sent correspondence to the Tribunal and applicant’s representative by email and courier on September 3, 2014, enclosing the respondent’s documents and making specific reference to the September 16, 2014 hearing.

3After business hours on September 14, 2014, the applicant’s representative sent an email to the Tribunal saying that the applicant wished to withdraw her Application subject to certain conditions. The Tribunal sent a response email on September 15, 2014, saying it would deal with her request at the outset of the hearing the next day.

4In turn, the applicant’s representative sent a further email saying that neither she nor her client would be available to participate in the hearing the following date. There was no request for an adjournment. The Tribunal responded by email on September 16, 2014, advising that it does not typically adjourn matters at that late date, absent exceptional circumstances, and attaching a link to its policy on adjournments. It also noted that the matter would proceed, that the applicant could make her request for an adjournment at the outset and that if she did not attend, the Tribunal could dismiss her Application as abandoned.

5The applicant did not join the teleconference at the commencement of the scheduled summary hearing. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 2:00 p.m. before proceeding. At 2:00 p.m., the applicant was still not in attendance. There was no further communication from the applicant or her representative.

6In the circumstances, the Application was dismissed on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the Application.