Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Lacie Lee Clark
Applicant
-and-
Baldwin Business Centre and Dan Cesana
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: Clark v. Baldwin Business Centre
1This is an Application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. The Application is scheduled to be heard on May 29, 2015.
2On December 23, 2014, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Hearing directing them to take certain steps in advance of the hearing. In particular, and among other things, the Notice of Hearing directed the parties to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure by providing one another with copies of their arguably relevant documents within 21 days of the date of the Notice of Hearing; and by exchanging with one another and filing with the Tribunal the documents they intended to rely upon at the hearing, a list of their witnesses and a summary of their witnesses’ anticipated evidence by no later than April 14, 2015 (i.e. 45 days before the first scheduled day of hearing).
3Neither the applicant nor the respondents provided the Tribunal with the materials required under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure by April 14, 2015.
4Accordingly, in an April 22, 2015 Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide the required materials to the respondents and the Tribunal by no later than April 30, 2015; and, if the applicant were to comply, the respondents were to provide the required materials to the applicant and the Tribunal by no later than May 8, 2015.
5In its CAD, the Tribunal warned the parties that there were serious consequences for the case if they did not comply with the Tribunal’s directions. In particular, the Tribunal’s CAD contained the following directions to the applicant:
By no later than April 30, 2015, the applicant must deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal the documents she intends to rely upon at the hearing, a list of her witnesses and a brief statement describing what her witnesses will say when they testify. If the applicant has not complied with this direction by April 30, 2015, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.
The applicant is reminded that she must also submit a witness statement for herself, assuming she intends to testify at the hearing. However, if the applicant only intends to testify about the facts already contained in her Application, it is sufficient for her to confirm this in writing by April 30, 2015.
If the applicant does not communicate with the Tribunal at all by April 30, 2015, her case may be dismissed as abandoned.
6It is now a week past the applicant’s deadline for complying with the Tribunal’s directions and the applicant has not filed the required materials with the Tribunal, nor has she communicated with the Tribunal. In fact, the Tribunal has not received any communication from the applicant since she filed the Application. She neither filed a Reply to the respondents’ Response, nor did she file proof that she shared all arguably relevant documents with the respondents in January as she was required to do under Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
7It appears that the applicant has abandoned the Application. In the circumstances, the respondents are no longer required to file anything further with the Tribunal. The Application is dismissed as abandoned.
ORDER
8The Application is dismissed as abandoned and the May 29, 2015 hearing date is cancelled.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of May, 2015.
“Signed by”
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair