HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Surinder Dhaliwal
Applicant
-and-
Pritam Hotel Ltd. o/a Comfort Inn Brampton
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Eli Fellman
Indexed as: Dhaliwal v. Pritam Hotel Ltd.
APPEARANCES
Surinder Dhaliwal, Applicant
No one appearing
Pritam Hotel Ltd. o/a Comfort Inn Brampton Respondent
Craig Lawrence, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of age.
2By way of a Registrar’s Letter dated February 24, 2015, the Tribunal directed that a Preliminary Hearing be held by teleconference to determine whether this Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.
3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing on March 11, 2015 containing call-in information for the telephone conference call on May 20, 2015 beginning at 9:30 a.m. The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing was sent to the applicant by regular mail on March 11, 2015 at the address provided by her to the Tribunal.
4The Tribunal did not receive any returned mail that was addressed to the applicant, and did not receive any communication from the applicant respecting the scheduled Preliminary Hearing.
5The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing also states:
“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 Preliminary Hearing was convened by teleconference on May 20, 2015, at the scheduled time. Only the respondent’s representative participated in the Preliminary Hearing. The applicant did not advise anyone that she would not be attending the hearing.
7I indicated to the respondent that we would wait 30 minutes in order to give the applicant an opportunity to participate in the hearing. At the end of the 30 minute period I briefly heard an unidentified woman’s voice on the teleconference. I asked several times for anyone who had recently joined the teleconference to identify themselves, but there was no response. After the allotted 30 minute period had I ended, I determined that the applicant was still not present and/or was not participating in the Preliminary Hearing.
8On May 21, 2015, a Tribunal employee received a telephone message from the Applicant’s representative indicating that she had difficulty joining the teleconference. The employee then spoke to the Applicant’s representative by telephone and advised her to send an email to the Tribunal, with a copy to the respondent, addressing any problems she had with the teleconference. As of May 28, 2015, the Tribunal had not received any communication from the Applicant or her representative.
9I am satisfied that the applicant received timely and proper notice of the Preliminary Hearing. In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for her failure to attend the hearing, I am dismissing the Application as abandoned.
ORDER
10The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of June, 2015.
“Signed by”
Eli Fellman
Vice-chair