HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Estelle Boateng
Applicant
-and-
Homeward Family Shelter (o/a Julliette’s Place) and Margaret Haynes
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Kevin Cleghorn
Indexed as: Boateng v. Homeward Family Shelter
APPEARANCES
Estelle Boateng, Applicant
No one appearing
Homeward Family Shelter (o/a Julliette’s Place) and Margaret Haynes, Respondents
Leslie Brown, Counsel
1This is an Application, dated November 10, 2014, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services and facilities based upon race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, family status, association and/or reprisal.
2By Notice of Summary/Preliminary Hearing (the “Notice”) dated June 5, 2015, this Application was set down for a Summary/Preliminary Hearing by teleconference call for August 4, 2015. The Notice was forwarded to the applicant by regular mail to an address which she had provided in her Application. The applicant has never up-dated her address or other contact information. She has responded to letters from this Tribunal sent to her at that address. No regular mail sent to the applicant has been returned to this Tribunal as “undeliverable”. I am satisfied, therefore, that the applicant received the Notice and was aware of the date and time scheduled for the Summary/Preliminary Hearing and teleconference in that regard.
3The Summary/Preliminary Hearing was scheduled for the purpose of determining whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success and/or if this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because the allegations are untimely i.e. that the Application was commenced more than one year after the subject matter arose which formed the basis of the complaint.
4Prior to the Notice, a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated April 22, 2015, advised the parties to deliver any further documents, witness lists or cases that they intended to rely upon for the hearing no later than 35 days from the date of the CAD. The respondents filed written submissions and case law for the hearing; no material was received from the applicant in response to the CAD. The CAD was forwarded to the applicant on April 22, 2015 by regular mail at the same address as mentioned above but also by e-mail to an address provided by the applicant in her Application. This Tribunal has received e-mail from the applicant from this e-mail address. She has not up-dated her e-mail address with this Tribunal. There has been no e-mail sent by this Tribunal to the applicant which resulted in the prompt of “undeliverable”. I am satisfied, therefore, that the applicant received the CAD and was aware that the Summary/Preliminary Hearing and teleconference in that regard would be scheduled in the near future, which ultimately did occur with the Notice being forwarded to her.
5The Notice states that
“If you do not attend the hearing after receiving proper notice, the HRTO may proceed in your absence (if you are a respondent or intervener)) or dismiss the Application as abandoned (if you are the applicant)”.
6The respondents attended on the Summary/Preliminary Hearing at the scheduled time and were prepared to proceed. The applicant did not attend on the Summary/Preliminary Hearing. The applicant was accorded 20 minutes subsequent to the scheduled start time for the Summary/Preliminary Hearing. No communication was received from the applicant to either request an adjournment or to explain her failure to participate at the scheduled time.
7In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.
8The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of August, 2015
“Signed By”
Kevin Cleghorn
Member