Kaleigh Smith v. 1849732 Ontario Inc. (o/a Diana’s Oyster Bar and Grill), 2015 HRTO 880

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Kaleigh Smith Applicant

-and-

1849732 Ontario Inc. (o/a Diana’s Oyster Bar and Grill) Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: July 2, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 880 Indexed as: Smith v. 1849732 Ontario Inc.

1This is an Application for Contravention of Settlement filed March 9, 2015. The Application is scheduled for hearing by conference call on July 6, 2015.

2The Application for Contravention of Settlement alleges that the applicant has yet to receive the payment provided for in the Minutes of Settlement. As a remedy, the applicant asks that the respondent pay her the sum immediately or for there to be another meeting in which the applicant can receive “further funds than what was settled upon”. It would appear that the applicant is seeking one of the two remedies identified.

3A Response was filed on March 23, 2015, indicating that the settlement payment has been made. As a result of the respondent’s payment, the respondent submits that the Tribunal ought to dismiss the Application.

4On April 15, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing. That Notice provided a timetable for filing documents and submissions. Neither party has filed any documents or submissions in accordance with the deadline specified.

5Having regard to the material filed, it is unclear if the applicant wishes to continue with the Application and if she does, what remedy, if any, she wishes to request and what documents and submissions she relies on in support of the Application.

6In a Case Assessment Direction issued on June 19, 2015 the applicant was directed as follows:

By no later than June 26, 2015, the applicant shall confirm her intentions in writing to the Tribunal, with a copy to the respondent. Without limiting the generality of the forgoing, the applicant shall confirm if she intends to continue with the Application for Contravention of Settlement and be in attendance at the conference call hearing. If the applicant intends to continue with this Application, the applicant is directed to set out what remedy is being sought.

If the applicant has not complied with this direction or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal by June 26, 2015, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

7The applicant has not complied with these directions nor has she communicated with the Tribunal in any manner.

8In the circumstances, it appears that the applicant has abandoned this Application and accordingly it is dismissed. The hearing on July 6, 2015 is cancelled.