Ganovsky (Litigation Guardian of) v. Rygiel Supports for Community Living, 2015 HRTO 45

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lisa Ganovsky as represented by her Litigation Guardian Nancy Gendron

Applicant

-and-

Rygiel Supports for Community Living

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: January 13, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 45

Indexed as: Ganovsky (Litigation Guardian of) v. Rygiel Supports for Community Living

APPEARANCES

Lisa Ganovsky as represented by her Litigation Guardian Nancy Gendron, Applicant

No one appearing

Rygiel Supports for Community Living, Respondent

Richard Wellenreiter, Counsel

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 May 10, 2013.

2On October 17, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties confirming that the continuation of a summary hearing would take place on January 12, 2015, commencing at 1:30 p.m. by way of teleconference. The Notice was delivered to the applicant’s representative, her litigation guardian, at the last address provided by the applicant to the Tribunal and was not returned as undeliverable. It was also the address used to deliver to the applicant’s litigation guardian a Case Assessment Direction on July 29, 2014 to which the applicant, through her litigation guardian responded.

3Rule 1.13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states, “A party must notify the Tribunal and all parties and their representatives, in writing, of any change in their contact information, as soon as possible.” The applicant did not notify the Tribunal of any change in her address. I am therefore satisfied that the applicant had notice of the summary hearing.

4No one appeared by way of teleconference at the commencement of the scheduled summary hearing. The respondent’s counsel did attend by teleconference. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 2:00 p.m. before proceeding.

5At 2:00 p.m., the applicant’s litigation guardian was still not in attendance nor had she communicated with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend. No one else appeared for the applicant. The respondent argued that the Application should be dismissed as abandoned.

6In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed on the basis that the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.