Jessica McJan v. Frito Lay Canada and Ron Kreutzer, 2014 HRTO 212

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jessica McJan

Applicant

-and-

Frito Lay Canada and Ron Kreutzer

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: February 14, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 212 Indexed as: McJan v. Frito Lay Canada

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on August 20, 2012.

2In Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 2185, issued November 22, 2012, the Tribunal deferred proceeding with this Application pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

3On September 3, 2013, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant at the mailing address the applicant provided in the Application. The applicant was asked to inform the Registrar in writing, within 30 days of the date of the letter, whether the grievance proceedings remained ongoing and, if possible, to indicate when they were expected to be completed. The letter went on to warn the applicant that failure to provide the requested information might result in the Tribunal dismissing the Application as abandoned. The applicant did not respond to Tribunal’s September 3, 2013 correspondence, which was later returned to the Tribunal, indicating that the applicant had “moved”.

4On October 9, 2013, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, by both regular mail and email at the addresses provided by the applicant in the Application, and attached the Tribunal’s September 3, 2013 correspondence to the applicant. The Tribunal advised the applicant that it would delay reviewing the Application for abandonment until October 21, 2013, in accordance with the Tribunal’s September 3, 2013 correspondence, and that the other requirements of the Tribunal’s September 3, 2013 correspondence remained as stated. The Tribunal’s October 9, 2013 correspondence sent to the applicant by regular mail was returned as undeliverable.

5On October 16, 2013, the Tribunal received a voice message from the applicant, indicating that she received the Tribunal’s October 9, 2013 correspondence sent by email, and that she was requesting an extension of time to respond. The Tribunal advised the applicant that it was necessary to make an extension request to the Tribunal in writing and to copy the other parties.

6By email dated November 8, 2013, the applicant requested an extension of 90 days. The applicant also provided an updated mailing address, and confirmed her email address.

7On November 13, 2013, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant by regular mail at the new address provided by the applicant, and by email. The Tribunal granted the applicant an extension until December 23, 2013 to respond to the Tribunal’s correspondence dated September 3, 2013, which was again attached to the Tribunal’s November 13, 2013 correspondence. The Tribunal also indicated in its November 13, 2013 correspondence that the applicant was required to advise the Tribunal by December 23, 2013 whether the grievance proceeding was still ongoing and, if possible, when it was expected to be completed. The Tribunal warned the applicant that if she failed to do so, the Tribunal may dismiss the Application as abandoned.

8To date, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s November 13, 2013 correspondence, and the time for doing so has passed. This correspondence to the applicant has also not been returned as undeliverable.

9In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application and the Application is dismissed.