Jacqueline Bell v. William Osler Health System and G4S Security Solutions (Canada) Ltd., 2016 HRTO 311

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jacqueline Bell

Applicant

-and-

William Osler Health System and G4S Security Solutions (Canada) Ltd.

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: March 9, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 311 Indexed as: Bell v. William Osler Health System

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 September 14, 2015.

The Request for Dismissal under Section 34 (11)

2With its Response to the Application, William Osler Health System (“William Osler”) filed a Request for Order During Proceeding requesting the early dismissal of the Application pursuant to section 34(11) and/or section 45.1 of the Code because the applicant has commenced a civil suit in relation to some or all of the issues raised in the Application.

3On November 25, 2015, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, delivering the respondent’s Response (Form 2) in which the respondent sought the early dismissal of the Application for the reasons set out above. In the letter the applicant was directed to respond to the dismissal issue raised by the respondent by December 9, 2015.

4The Tribunal’s letter explained to the applicant that if she did not respond as directed the Applications may be dismissed as abandoned.

5On December 9, the applicant requested a two-week extension to respond to these issues. The extension request was granted. The applicant did not file a Reply and the time for doing so has long since passed.

The Request for Summary Hearing

6In its Response (Form 2), filed on November 20, 2015, G4S Security Solutions (“G4S”) requested that a summary hearing be held to determine whether all or part of the Application should be dismissed because all or part of it had no reasonable prospect of success.

7The applicant did not respond to this Request.

Case Assessment Direction

8Although the applicant has made some contact with the Tribunal, the applicant did not respond to the issues, or Tribunal’s direction to respond to the issues, raised by the respondents and the time for doing so had well passed.

9On February 11, 2016 the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing the applicant to provide a Reply to the issues raised in the respondents’ respective Responses no later than 14 days from the date of the CAD. She was warned that if she failed to file the Reply by the required deadline the Tribunal might consider the failure to do so as an abandonment of the Application and dismiss the Application for that reason.

10The applicant has not responded to the CAD and the time for doing so has now passed. In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

11The Application is dismissed.