Yi Fan Zhou v. Parkway Hotels and Convention Centre Inc. (Sheraton) and Margarita Villa, 2016 HRTO 1172

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yi Fan Zhou

Applicant

-and-

Parkway Hotels and Convention Centre Inc. (Sheraton) and Margarita Villa

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: September 6, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1172

Indexed as: Zhou v. Parkway Hotels and Convention Centre Inc.

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 September 19, 2016.

2On May 4, 2016, 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 August 5, 2016 (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 August 5, 2016.

4Accordingly, in an August 12, 2016 Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide the required materials to the respondents and the Tribunal by no later than August 26, 2016; and the respondents to provide the required materials to the applicant and the Tribunal by the same date.

5The respondents provided their materials to the applicant and the Tribunal on August 26, 2016.

6In its CAD, the Tribunal warned the applicant that if the applicant did not file the hearing documents or contact the Tribunal by August 26, 2016, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

7It is now eleven days past the applicant’s deadline for complying with the Tribunal’s directions and the applicant has not filed the required materials with the Tribunal or contacted the Tribunal.

8In the circumstances, it appears that the applicant has abandoned the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

ORDER

9The Application is dismissed as abandoned and the September 19, 2016 hearing date is cancelled.