Sintia Bertolissi v. Sault Area Hospital, 2015 HRTO 285

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sintia Bertolissi

Applicant

-and-

Sault Area Hospital

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: March 10, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 285

Indexed as: Bertolissi v. Sault Area Hospital

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 June 27, 2013.

2By letter dated September 4, 2013, the Tribunal confirmed that the Application was deferred on consent of the parties, pending the completion of union grievance proceedings. The letter also directed the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which outline the procedure by which deferred applications may be brought back on after the completion of other related proceedings.

3On June 5, 2014, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant. The applicant was directed to inform the Tribunal in writing, by July 5, 2014, whether the union grievance proceeding remained ongoing and, if possible, to indicate when it was expected to be completed. The Tribunal’s letter again directed the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

4On July 4, 2014, the Tribunal received correspondence from the applicant, copied to the respondent, indicating that she had withdrawn her grievance and wished to proceed with the Application.

5By letter dated July 7, 2014, the Tribunal advised the applicant that, if she intended to re-activate the Application, it was necessary to complete and file a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10). The applicant was again referred to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules, which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the other proceeding. The applicant did not file a Form 10, nor did she otherwise communicate with the Tribunal.

6On December 24, 2014, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant by email, and included the Tribunal’s July 7, 2014 letter. In the December 24, 2014 letter, the Tribunal indicated that it had not received any correspondence from the applicant in response to the July 7, 2014 letter, and that the July 7, 2014 letter had not been returned as undeliverable. The Tribunal reminded the applicant to review Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules. The December 24, 2014 letter to the applicant also indicated that if the Tribunal did not receive any correspondence by January 8, 2015, the file would be reviewed or possible abandonment.

7To date, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s July 7 and December 24, 2014 correspondence, and the time for doing so has passed. The Tribunal’s correspondence was sent to the applicant at addresses provided by the applicant in the Application, and has not been returned as undeliverable.

8In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application and the Application is dismissed.