Lisa Kerkhof v. Carte Blanche Haute Coiffure, 2014 HRTO 1419

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Lisa Kerkhof Applicant

-and-

Carte Blanche Haute Coiffure Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: September 24, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1419 Indexed as: Kerkhof v. Carte Blanche Haute Coiffure

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, on February 10, 2014.

2On July 28, 2014, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Hearing (“the Notice”) to the parties scheduling the hearing for December 8, 2014 (“the hearing date”) in Ottawa. The Notice provided information about rescheduling in the event a party was not available on the hearing date. It was mailed to the address identified on the applicant’s Application and was not returned by Canada Post.

3By letter dated August 12, 2014, the respondent’s counsel advised the applicant in writing, copying the Tribunal, that she was not available on the hearing date and proposed a number of alternate dates as was required in the Notice. That letter was sent to the applicant’s address identified on her Application.

4The Tribunal emailed the parties on August 13, 2014, using the email address the applicant provided on her Application, directing the applicant to provide a response to the respondent’s request by August 18, 2014. The applicant did not respond.

5The Tribunal sent another email to the parties, on August 20, 2014, asking for the applicant to provide a response by the end of the day. The applicant did not respond. Later that day, the respondent’s counsel advised that its August correspondence had been returned as “undeliverable”.

6On September 2, 2014, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant by regular mail and email, copying the respondent’s counsel. In the letter, the Tribunal advised about its previous communications with her to which the applicant had not responded, drew her attention to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which provides for the Tribunal finally determining an Application where it cannot contact the person according to the contact information provided to the Tribunal by that person, and directed the applicant to confirm her intentions for her Application. The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond by September 16, 2014, failing which the Tribunal may deem the Application to be abandoned and close the file. The letter was not returned by Canada Post as being undeliverable.

7To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the Tribunal’s correspondence.

8In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

9The Application is dismissed.