Alma Clarke-Royer v. City of Toronto, 2016 HRTO 1011

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alma Clarke-Royer Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: July 29, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1011 Indexed as: Clarke-Royer v. Toronto (City)

APPEARANCES

Alma Clarke- Royer, Applicant Self-represented

City of Toronto, Respondent Darragh Meagher, Counsel

CUPE Local 79, Interested Party Maeve Biggar, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging harassment and discrimination with respect to employment.

2The Application had been deferred by the Tribunal because of ongoing grievance proceedings. Once the arbitration proceedings concluded, there was no further reason to defer the Application. However, the Tribunal determined that a Preliminary Hearing should be held to determine if the arbitrator has appropriately dealt with the substance of this Application and therefore, the Application should be dismissed.

3On June 15, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Preliminary Hearing advising the parties that a teleconference hearing had been scheduled for July 28, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

4The Preliminary Hearing was convened by teleconference on July 28, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., the scheduled time. All parties were present on the call.

5At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant indicated that she did not wish to participate in this hearing as it was a breach of her Constitutional rights. She indicated that the arbitration process is illegal and that I must look into the process so that it becomes more transparent. She indicated that I needed to answer the questions she had outlined in previous correspondence and investigate the arbitration process.

6I explained to the parties that I had no power to review the arbitrator’s decision or to investigate the arbitration process.

7After I explained that I had no power to investigate the arbitration process, the applicant again stated that she would not participate in this hearing and she hung up her phone. At that point, I indicated to the remaining parties that we would wait 10 minutes in order to give the applicant an opportunity to determine if she wished to rejoin the teleconference and participate in the hearing. At 1:45 p.m., the applicant had not rejoined the call.

8As a result, I am dismissing the Application as abandoned.

ORDER

9The Application is dismissed.