Emily Karen Skinkle v. Lynn Rempel and Dawn Prentice, 2014 HRTO 867

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Emily Karen Skinkle Applicant

-and-

Lynn Rempel and Dawn Prentice Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: June 12, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 867 Indexed as: Skinkle v. Rempel

APPEARANCES

Emily Karen Skinkle, Applicant No one appearing

Lynn Rempel and Dawn Prentice, Respondents No one appearing

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be convened to determine whether the Application should be dismissed as against Lynn Rempel on the basis that it was not filed within one year of the last incident of alleged discrimination by her. In its Direction, the Tribunal directed that the hearing would proceed by way of teleconference and advised the parties that a Notice of Hearing would be sent to them by the Registrar's office.

3The Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties on March 31, 2014, advising that the hearing would commence at 1:30 p.m. on June 10, 2014. The Notice of Hearing also advised the parties how to connect to the teleconference. The Notice of Hearing was mailed to the applicant and the respondents at the addresses provided by them to the Tribunal.

4The hearing was convened by teleconference on June 10, 2014 at the scheduled time. Neither the applicant nor the respondents were present at the hearing.

5I remained on the teleconference call until 2:00 p.m. At 2:00 p.m. the parties were still not present.

6I was satisfied at the hearing that the parties had received notice of the hearing. There was no indication that any of the parties would not be attending the hearing. In the absence of the parties or any explanation for their failure to attend the hearing, I dismissed the Application as abandoned.

order

7The Application is dismissed.