HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Heather Green
Applicant
-and-
Extendicare Peterborough and Jennifer McCall
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: Green v. Extendicare Peterborough
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on January 7, 2015, alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sexual orientation, family status and marital status.
2On October 8, 2015, the organizational respondent, Extendicare Peterborough, filed a Response to the Application. In its Response, the organizational respondent advised that the individual respondent was no longer its employee and had not received the Application.
3On October 26, 2015 the Tribunal delivered the Response to the applicant, which included the organizational respondent’s request to dismiss the Application on the basis that another proceeding has dealt with the substance of the Application. As well, the applicant was asked to identify an address for delivery on the individual respondent. The applicant did not respond.
4In correspondence dated November 25, 2015, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant again and directed her to respond to the issues identified in the Response by November 27, 2015. The applicant was advised that if she did not provide submissions by that date her Application might be dismissed as abandoned.
5On November 26, 2015, the applicant filed her Reply. The Reply was unclear but appeared to consent to the dismissal of the Application. The applicant also indicated by email that she was unable to locate the individual respondent’s contact information. The Tribunal has been unable to deliver the Application to the individual respondent.
6On January 28, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), by mail and courier, directing the applicant to confirm in writing whether she agrees with the dismissal of her Application against the organisational respondent, the individual respondent or both respondents. The applicant was directed to respond to the CAD by February 5, 2016 and warned that failure to respond may be considered an abandonment of the Application and might be dismissed for that reason.
7As of the date of this Decision, the applicant has not responded to the CAD, the time for doing so has now passed and the Tribunal’s correspondence to the applicant has not been returned.
8In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application and the Application is dismissed
Dated at Toronto, this 25th day of February, 2016.
“Signed by”
Josée Bouchard
Vice-chair