Miriam Hackman v. Town of Ajax, 2014 HRTO 421

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Miriam Hackman Applicant

-and-

Town of Ajax Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: March 25, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 421

Indexed as: Hackman v. Ajax (Town)

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 December 8, 2011.

2On October 1, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties confirming that hearing of the Application would take place on March 20 and 21, 2014 commencing at 9:30 a.m. at the Tribunal’s hearing centre at 655 Bay St, 14th Floor, Toronto, Ontario. The Notice was delivered to the applicant’s counsel who was representing her at the time.

3On February 4, 2014, the applicant’s counsel notified the Tribunal in writing, copying the respondent’s counsel, to advise that he was no longer representing the applicant, but there is no reason from me to believe that the applicant’s counsel would not have advised her, in the four previous months prior to him removing himself from the record, that her hearing was to commence March 20, 2014. On March 17, 2014, the applicant’s previous counsel responded to an email from the respondent to remind the respondent that he was no longer representing the applicant and to provide the applicant’s email address so that she might be contacted directly.

4On March 19, 2014, at 12:45 p.m., Tribunal staff emailed the applicant to say that she should bring to the hearing commencing March 20, 2014 any hard copies of any documents upon which she intended to rely. No response was received.

5The applicant was not in attendance at the commencement of the scheduled hearing on March 20, 2014. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. before proceeding.

6At 10:00 a.m. the applicant was not in attendance nor had the applicant communicated with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend.

7In the circumstances, the Application was dismissed on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the Application.