Gabriella Trichilo v. Erin Mills Soccer Club, 2014 HRTO 838

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gabriella Trichilo Applicant

-and-

Erin Mills Soccer Club Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: June 6, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 838 Indexed as: Trichilo v. Erin Mills Soccer Club

APPEARANCES

Gabriella Trichilo, Applicant No one appearing

Erin Mills Soccer Club, Respondent Jackie VanDerMeulen, 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 employment. The respondent filed a Response denying the allegations.

2A Notice of Hearing dated November 28, 2013 (“the notice”) was issued by the Tribunal to the parties scheduling the hearing for June 5 and 6, 2014, commencing at 9:30 a.m. In the notice, various dates were identified for the parties to comply with their disclosure obligations as set out in Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

3A Case Assessment Direction dated May 12, 2014 (“the May 12 CAD”) was issued by the Tribunal when the applicant failed to comply with her disclosure obligations. The Tribunal directed the applicant to comply with her disclosure obligations by May 20, 2014 and warned that her Application may be dismissed if she did not comply.

4On May 22, 2014, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) requesting that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that the applicant had abandoned her Application.

5A Case Assessment Direction dated May 23, 2014 (“the May 23 CAD”) was issued by the Tribunal when the applicant failed to comply with the directions in the May 12 CAD. The May 23 CAD directed the applicant to comply with the directions set out in the May 23 CAD, directed her to file a Response to the RFOP, and that her Application would be dismissed if she did not comply by May 27, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the applicant filed a number of documents and filed a Response to the RFOP.

6A Case Assessment Direction dated June 3, 2014 (“the June CAD”) was issued denying the respondent’s June 2, 2014 request to adjourn and directing the parties to be prepared to proceed on June 5, 2014.

7On June 5, 2014, the hearing commenced at 9:30 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 until 10:00 a.m. The applicant had not arrived at this time. The Tribunal held down the start of the hearing for another 15 minutes until 10:15 a.m., and the applicant still did not attend. As the applicant had not communicated with the Tribunal to indicate that she would be late or was unable to attend, the Tribunal orally dismissed the Application as abandoned with a written decision to be issued. This is the written decision.

8Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.