Harris v. Everest College Canada Inc., 2014 HRTO 1564

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Abena-Kai Harris Applicant

-and-

Everest College Canada Inc., Connie Greubel, Tammy Faubert-Holden, Leanne Rakovich, Mally Roeun and Elsie Santamaria Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: October 22, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1564 Indexed as: Harris v. Everest College Canada Inc.

Decision

1By Application filed on September 10, 2013, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The Tribunal experienced several problems in delivering documents relating to this matter and also in communicating with the applicant and her representative.

3On June 12 and 24, 2014, the Tribunal e-mailed the applicant’s representative to ask her to confirm her address as well as the applicant’s address. The applicant’s representative did not respond to the Tribunal’s e-mails.

4By letter dated July 24, 2014, the Tribunal’s Registrar advised the applicant that the addresses she provided for all individual respondents other than one individual were incorrect. The Registrar directed the applicant to provide alternate addresses for the individual respondents whose addresses were incorrect. In the letter, the Registrar also advised the applicant that the respondents had requested that the Application be dismissed. The Registrar directed the applicant to respond to this request no later than August 7, 2014. The Registrar’s letter was sent to the applicant by regular mail and to her representative by regular mail and e-mail. Neither the applicant nor her representative responded to the Registrar’s letter.

5By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated September 10, 2014, the Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the Tribunal’s July 24, 2014 letter within 7 days. Specifically, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide alternate addresses for all individual respondents. The Tribunal advised the applicant that, if she does not do so, her Application against these individual respondents would be dismissed. The Tribunal also directed the applicant to provide correct contact information for her representative or advise the Tribunal if she is now representing herself. In addition, the Tribunal directed the applicant, or her representative, to provide a response to the respondent’s request to dismiss the Application. The Tribunal advised that the Application would be dismissed as abandoned if they failed to do so.

6The Tribunal’s CAD was sent to both the applicant and her representative by regular mail and e-mail. Neither responded to the CAD or contacted the Tribunal with respect to this matter.

Order

7Due to the applicant’s failure to respond to the Tribunal Registrar’s letter and the follow up CAD, her Application is dismissed as abandoned.