HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Bianca Sainsbury
Applicant
-and-
Jake’s Bar and Eatery and Donnalee Queen
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Indexed as: Sainsbury v. Jake’s Bar and Eatery
APPEARANCES
Bianca Sainsbury, Applicant
No one appearing
Jake’s Bar and Eatery, Respondent
Donnalee Queen, Representative
Donnalee Queen, Respondent
Self-represented
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on April 4, 2013.
2A hearing was scheduled and convened on January 31, 2014. The applicant was not present, but the respondents were in attendance. At that time, I was advised that the applicant’s representative telephoned the Tribunal that morning to advise that she was unable to attend. I was also advised that Tribunal staff instructed him to contact the Tribunal and the respondents in writing regarding the applicant’s failure to attend.
3No communication was received by the Tribunal, and on February 10, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (CAD), instructing the applicant to provide a written explanation, along with relevant documentation, including medical documentation, regarding her failure to attend the scheduled hearing day of January 31, 2014.
4On February 10, 2014, the Tribunal received a faxed note, dated February 2, 2014, from Glenn Shotlander, who was acting as the applicant’s representative, stating that he was “unable to attend the above-mentioned Tribunal originally scheduled for January 31, 2014, due to illness.” He also stated “Please re-schedule at your earliest convenience”.
5On February 13, 2014, the Tribunal issued a CAD, noting that in essence, the applicant was seeking an adjournment of the January 31, 2014 hearing date and stating that the faxed note from Glenn Shotlander was insufficient to support a request for an adjournment. In the CAD, the Tribunal quoted its Practice Direction and case law regarding requests to adjourn, and directed the applicant to provide medical documentation relating to the request for an adjournment within 28 days of the CAD.
6The applicant was warned that if she did not file the required medical documentation by the stated deadline the Tribunal might decide the question of whether an adjournment would be granted or whether the Application should be dismissed for the applicant’s failure to appear at the scheduled hearing date, on the basis of the material already before it, or may dismiss the Application as abandoned.
7The Tribunal has not received any further communication from the applicant, nor has she responded to the CAD. The time for doing so has now passed.
8In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.
9The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of March, 2014.
“Signed by”
Maureen Doyle
Vice-chair