Teresa Gardner v. Di Cenzo Management Inc. and Rick Carpenter, 2014 HRTO 1618

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Teresa Gardner

Applicant

-and-

Di Cenzo Management Inc. and Rick Carpenter

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: November 3, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1618

Indexed as: Gardner v. Di Cenzo Management Inc.

1This Application alleges discrimination by the respondents with respect to housing contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction on July 17, 2014 ("the July CAD"), in which it stated that a case management conference call ("the call") would be scheduled to hear the parties' submissions about issues raised in two Requests for Order During Proceeding ("RFOP") that had been filed by the applicant as well as any other preliminary issues that were identified by the parties.

3The call was held on August 27, 2014, and the parties participated. A Case Assessment Direction dated August 28, 2014 ("the August CAD") was issued following the call. In the August CAD, the Tribunal directed the applicant, at para. 5, to do the following:

During the call, the Tribunal stated that it would direct the applicant to provide additional information pertaining to the allegations contained in her Application and her Reply, and more specifically the dates upon which her allegations occurred. During the call, the applicant agreed to provide, to the best of her abilities, the information as requested in para. 11 of the corporate respondent's Response. She agreed to provide that information within 14 days from the date of this Case Assessment Direction. She is directed to file this information with the Tribunal as well as the respondents' legal counsel.

4The Tribunal then set out a timetable for the respondents to file an additional response.

5The applicant did not comply with that direction or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal. The respondents wrote to the Tribunal on September 18, 2014, requesting that the Tribunal dismiss the Application in light of the applicant's failure to comply with the direction.

6Another Case Assessment Direction dated October 20, 2014 was issued by the Tribunal ("the October CAD"). In para. 6 of the October CAD, the Tribunal directed the applicant, again, to provide the information set out in para. 5 of the August CAD. The Tribunal directed the applicant to file that information with the Tribunal by email, copying the respondents' counsel, by Monday, October 27, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. The Tribunal warned the applicant that if she did not comply with this direction, the Tribunal may dismiss her Application as abandoned.

7The applicant did not comply with that direction or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal. On October 28, 2014, the respondents wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the Application be dismissed because of the applicant's continued failure to comply with the Tribunal's directions.

8Given that the applicant has failed on several occasions to comply with the directions set out in the August CAD, and has failed to communicate with the Tribunal, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.