King v. London Public Library, 2014 HRTO 1728

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela King Applicant

-and-

London Public Library Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: December 1, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1728 Indexed as: King v. London Public Library

APPEARANCES

Angela King, Applicant No one appearing

London Public Library, Respondent John Judson and John Brennan, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services, housing, and membership in a vocational association on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, disability, creed, receipt of public assistance, and reprisal. Essentially, the Application is about the ban from premises and services that the respondent issued to the applicant. The applicant asserts that this was discriminatory and the respondent, in its Response, submits that it was issued because of the applicant’s abusive conduct towards its staff.

2A Notice of Hearing dated June 3, 2014 was issued by the Tribunal to the parties rescheduling the hearing for November 27 and 28, 2014 commencing at 10:00 a.m. The hearing was rescheduled from the July 2014 hearing dates based upon a timely request from the respondent. When the respondent made its timely request, it proposed new hearing dates in October 2014. After a number of attempts by the Tribunal to have the applicant respond to the respondent’s rescheduling request, the applicant finally responded, but indicated that she was not available for the proposed October hearing dates. Accordingly November hearing dates were scheduled.

3On November 24, 2014 the applicant requested an adjournment of the November hearing dates. In a Case Assessment Direction dated November 25, 2014, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s adjournment request and stated that the hearing would proceed as scheduled. In addition to addressing some issues that the applicant had raised, the Tribunal stated that if the applicant filed medical documentation or dental documentation in support of her adjournment request, her adjournment request would be reconsidered by the Tribunal.

4The applicant did not file such documentation with the Tribunal or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal.

5On November 27, the hearing commenced at 10:00 a.m. The respondent was present, but the applicant was not. Consistent with its practice when a party is not present, the Tribunal held down the start of the hearing for 30 minutes. At 10:40 a.m., the applicant still had not arrived or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal to indicate that she would be late, or unable to attend. She had not forwarded any medical or dental documentation confirming her inability to attend the hearing. As the applicant had not communicated with the Tribunal, the Tribunal orally dismissed the Application as abandoned with a written decision to be issued. This is the written decision.

6Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.