Joanne Noel v. Scholastic Canada Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1033

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Joanne Noel Applicant

-and-

Scholastic Canada Ltd. Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: August 4, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1033 Indexed as: Noel v. Scholastic Canada Inc.

Written Submissions

Joanne Noel, Applicant Self-represented

Scholastic Canada Ltd, Respondent Catherine M. Milne, Counsel

Introduction

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 October 27, 2014.

2On April 27, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing. The respondent followed the directions in this Notice for requesting that the hearing dates be rescheduled.

3On May 11, 2015, Tribunal canvassed alternate hearing dates. The applicant was requested to select two consecutive dates and to provide a response to the Tribunal and the respondent by May 15, 2015. The applicant asked for more time to do this. The applicant did not advise how much more time was required and has not responded to the Tribunal’s request that she indicate how much more time she needs to advise on hearing dates.

4On June 16, 2015, the respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing (“Form 26”) to which the applicant has not responded.

5On July 8, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing the applicant to file a Response to the Summary Hearing Request by July 15, 2015. The CAD advised the applicant that if she failed to provide a Response, her Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

6On July 15, 2015, the applicant advised the Tribunal that effective July 15, 2015, she had a new representative. The representative has not confirmed this or provided the Tribunal with contact information the Tribunal as required by the Rules. The respondent has advised that its attempts to contact the representative at the email address provided by the applicant have bounced back as undeliverable.

7On July 20, 2015, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant asking her to provide the Tribunal and the respondent with a date by which she would provide the Response addressing the Summary Hearing as directed in the CAD.

8The applicant has not responded to the CAD. Further, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s correspondence regarding the CAD and the need to provide details on the amount of extra time she will need to advise of hearing date availability.

9In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

10The Application is dismissed.