Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Sandra Darman
Applicant
-and-
First Service Residential Inc. and Corrine Tinaco
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Darman v. First Service Residential Inc.
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to contracts because of disability, place of origin and race contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This hearing was scheduled to begin on August 2 and 3, 2016 in Toronto but was adjourned to a later date at the request of the applicant.
2In a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) issued on July 29, 2016 I made the following directions with respect to some important outstanding matters in this case:
a. The applicant will deliver and file a Response to the respondents’ Request by September 2, 2016;
b. In addition, the applicant shall at the same time deliver and file a detailed witness statement setting out the particulars of her allegations of harassment by the personal respondent. In particular the applicant should identify what was said to her and when it was said;
c. The applicant shall also deliver and file at the same time submissions explaining why the evidence of a civil suit between her father and the respondents and her father’s medical condition are relevant to her Application.
d. The respondents need not respond to the applicant’s submissions unless directed to do so.
3The applicant did not comply with these directions but instead filed a Form 3 Reply in which she sought an extension of time to comply. The applicant provided no reason for the Request and did not specify what length of extension she required.
4On September 6, 2016 the Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Request in the proper form and to specify what length of extension the applicant required. The applicant filed a Form 10 on September 6, 2016 but did not explain why any further time was required and did not specify the length of extension being sought.
5The respondent opposed the request for an extension and on September 19, 2016 filed a Form 11 formally opposing the applicant’s request.
6In a CAD issued to the parties on September 20, 2016 I came to the following conclusions at paragraph 6:
I agree with the respondent. The applicant has provided no real explanation for the extensive delay the applicant providing particulars of her allegations that should be known to her and should have been included in the Application. It is also the case as pointed out be the respondent that the applicant has in effect been granted a de facto extension of more than two weeks.
7I also reminded the parties of the Tribunal’s Rules 5.6, and 5.7:
5.6 Where a party fails to deliver material to another party or person as required by these Rules, the Tribunal may refuse to consider the material, or may take any other action it considers appropriate.
5.7 Where a party seeks to present evidence or make submissions with respect to a fact or issue that was not raised in the Application, Response, Reply, or in the materials filed under Rule 16 or 17, the Tribunal may refuse to allow the party to present evidence or make submissions about the fact or issue unless satisfied that there would be no substantial prejudice and no undue delay to the proceedings
8In the September 20, 2016 CAD I made the following Direction:
a. within 7 days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction the applicant will confirm her intention to proceed further with this Application and will comply with the directions made in the Case Assessment Direction issued on July 29, 2016 failing which the Tribunal may take any or all of the actions described in Rules 5.6 and 5.7 or may determine that this Application has been abandoned and dismiss it for that reason.
9On October 7, 2016 the respondent wrote to the Tribunal seeking the Tribunal’s direction in light of the circumstances set out above.
Decision
10The applicant did not comply with any of these Directions and has not made contact with the Tribunal in any way since September 6, 2016. In all of the circumstances it appears that the applicant has abandoned the Application and it is accordingly dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of October, 2016.
“Signed By”
David Muir
Vice-chair