Pollock v. Georgina Taxi Inc., 2016 HRTO 1304

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kayla Pollock

Applicant

-and-

Georgina Taxi Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: October 7, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1304

Indexed as: Pollock v. Georgina Taxi Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Kayla Pollock, Applicant

Self-represented

Georgina Taxi Inc., Respondent

Mike Osborne, Representative

1This Decision deals with whether the applicant may withdraw her Application.

background

2A hearing in respect of this Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, is scheduled to take place on October 11, 2016. The applicant sought an adjournment of the hearing for health reasons, but did not submit medical documents in support of that request.

3On October 5, 2016, the applicant wrote an email to the Tribunal, which was copied to the respondent, in which she stated: “I am writing to inform you that I am comfortable dropping my complaint against Georgina taxi”. The applicant went on to discuss the reasons why she did not feel the need to proceed to a hearing in this matter, but it is unnecessary to reproduce them here. Suffice to say, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant wishes to withdraw her Application.

4On October 6, 2016, the respondent sent the Tribunal an email, copied to the applicant, opposing the withdrawal. It says it would “like to be heard” and at the end of the hearing, it would like to see a number of remedies in its favour.

decision and analysis

5Rule 10.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that, “where a Response to an Application has been filed, an Application may be withdrawn only with the permission of the Tribunal and upon such terms as the Tribunal may determine.”

6The Tribunal appreciates that this last-minute withdrawal inconveniences the respondent, which has prepared its case and made arrangement for its principal and witnesses to attend the upcoming hearing. However, there would be little gained by refusing to grant the applicant’s request. The vindication sought by the respondent would be unlikely to be forthcoming as the Tribunal cannot force the applicant to attend a hearing. In the absence of the applicant, the Application would merely be dismissed as abandoned at that stage. Moreover, the Tribunal does not have the authority to award the remedies the respondent is seeking.

7In light of the considerations set out above, I find that there is an insufficient basis to refuse the applicant’s request for leave to withdraw her Application.

order

8Accordingly, the request to withdraw this Application is granted and the Tribunal’s file will be closed. The hearing scheduled for October 11, 2016 is cancelled.