Shemeka Gordon v. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Inc., 2014 HRTO 652

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shemeka Gordon Applicant

-and-

Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Inc. and Rui Ferreria Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri Price Date: May 7, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 652 Indexed as: Gordon v. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Inc.

APPEARANCES

Shemeka Gordon, Applicant No one appearing

Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Inc., Respondent Jonathan Maier, Counsel

Rui Ferreria, Respondent Self-represented

1This is an Application under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”), in which the applicant alleges that the respondents infringed her rights under the Code.

2On October 28, 2013, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Hearing advising that the hearing of the Application would commence at 9:30 a.m. on May 5, 2014, and continue on May 6, 2014.

3The Notice of Hearing was mailed to the applicant at the address provided by her to the Tribunal and was not returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable. In addition, it appears that the Notice of Hearing was received by the applicant because, on November 17, 2013, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal seeking an extension of the November 18, 2013 time limit for the disclosure of her arguably relevant documents, which time limit was set out in the October 28, 2013 Notice of Hearing.

4The hearing of the Application was convened on May 5, 2014, at the scheduled time. The respondents were in attendance. The applicant was not.

5I advised those present that the hearing would commence at 10:00 a.m. or when the applicant attended, whichever occurred first.

6By 10:00 a.m., the applicant had still not appeared.

7I was satisfied at the hearing that the applicant had received timely and proper notice of the hearing of the Application. I am not aware of the Tribunal having received any indication that the applicant would not be attending the May 5, 2014 hearing. In addition, the respondents advised me during the hearing that they had not received any communications from the applicant indicating that she would be unable to attend the scheduled hearing.

8In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for her failure to attend the hearing, I dismissed the Application as abandoned at the hearing.

ORDER

9The Application is dismissed.