Woolcock v. Kaiser Aluminum Canada, 2016 HRTO 1582

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Melissa Woolcock Applicant

-and-

Kaiser Aluminum Canada Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw Date: December 8, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1582 Indexed as: Woolcock v. Kaiser Aluminum Canada

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application on October 18, 2013, alleging that the respondent discriminated and reprised against her in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the "Code").

2The Application was deferred on January 21, 2014 because of outstanding grievances. The arbitrator rendered his decision with respect to the grievances on October 3, 2015.

3The Application then was reactivated in Interim Decision, 2016 HRTO 110, in which the Tribunal also directed that a preliminary hearing be held to address whether the Application should be dismissed in accordance with s. 45.1 of the Code on the basis that the issues in the Application were appropriately dealt with in the arbitrator's decision.

4After the preliminary hearing with respect to s. 45.1, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision, 2016 HRTO 1313, dated October 12, 2016, in which the applicant's allegations between 2012 and 2015 were dismissed, leaving only her pre-2011 allegations. The Tribunal requested by no later than October 26, 2016 submissions from the applicant with respect to whether the delay in filing her Application in respect of these allegations was incurred in good faith, pursuant to subsection 34(2) of the Code. The parties also were advised they would have an opportunity to make oral submissions by teleconference call.

5The preliminary hearing with respect to delay and good faith was scheduled for December 8, 2016. On November 21, 2016 the applicant's former counsel telephoned the Tribunal to ask if the hearing was going to proceed on December 8, 2016 and when told it would, she advised that she would advise the applicant to file her submissions. However, the applicant did not file any submissions with the Tribunal.

6The preliminary hearing was scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. on December 8, 2016 by teleconference. No party joined the teleconference call, despite the Tribunal remaining on the conference call until 10 a.m. As such, it appears the applicant has abandoned the Application.

Order and direction

7This Application is dismissed as abandoned.