HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kelly Maika
Applicant
-and-
Ministry of Government Services and
Manulife Financial Group Health Benefits
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Maika v. Ontario (Government Services)
APPEARANCES
Lisa Maika, Applicant ) No one appearing
Ministry of Government Services, ) Lisa Compagnone, Counsel
Respondent )
Manulife Financial Group Health Benefits, ) Sophia Zaidi, Counsel
Respondent )
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of disability. The applicant applied for long term disability benefits. The essential allegation of the applicant is that the process of receiving these benefits was prolonged because of the nature of her alleged disabilities.
2The respondents both sought the early dismissal of this Application pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code on the basis that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with its substance.
3In a Case Assessment Direction issued on February 13, 2014 the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed. At the summary hearing the parties were also expected to address the section 45.1 issue raised by the respondents.
4On March 14, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties confirming that a summary hearing would take place by telephone conference call on July 11, 2014 commencing at 9:30 a.m.
5At the request of the respondent Manulife the summary hearing was re-scheduled.
6On April 4, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Rescheduled Summary Hearing to the parties confirming that a summary hearing would take place by telephone conference call on September 23, 2014 commencing at 9:30 a.m. The Notice was delivered to the applicant at the last address provided by the applicant to the Tribunal and was not returned as undeliverable.
7I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing.
8The applicant was not on the conference call at the commencement of the scheduled hearing. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. before proceeding.
9At 10:00 a.m. the applicant was not on the conference call nor had the applicant communicated with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend.
10In the circumstances, the Application was dismissed at the hearing on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 24^th^ day of September, 2014.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair