Van Schaick v. Woodward, 2016 HRTO 451

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Melanie Van Schaick

Applicant

-and-

Samantha Woodward

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Date: April 11, 2016
Citation: 2016 HRTO 451
Indexed as: Van Schaick v. Woodward

1This Application originally was scheduled by Notice of Hearing dated November 5, 2015.

2The Tribunal sent the parties a Case Assessment Direction, dated April 4, 2016 in response to a Form 26 Request for a Summary Hearing filed by the respondent on March 10, 2016 to which the applicant did not respond. The Case Assessment Direction advised the parties that the in person hearing would be changed to a teleconference summary hearing and that a notice with the time, date and call in details would follow. The Notice of Summary Hearing was then sent to the parties by e-mail the same day setting out the time, date and call in details.

3On the scheduled day of the summary hearing, neither the applicant or the applicant’s father who had been acting as the applicant’s Litigation Guardian (“applicant’s father”) joined the teleconference call at the scheduled time although the respondent and respondent’s counsel did so. In accordance with the Tribunal’s normal practice, I waited half an hour. During that time, the applicant’s father appeared in person at the hearing site. As such, I reconvened the hearing with the applicant’s father and I in person and the respondent and her counsel on the telephone.

4At the outset of the teleconference hearing, the applicant’s father professed confusion about the hearing not being an in person hearing. He stated he had received the April 4, 2016 Case Assessment Direction on April 7, 2016 by mail, and did not receive the Notice of Summary Hearing.

5The Tribunal advised that the Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the applicant’s e-mail address on April 4, 2016, and inquired if that was the correct e-mail address. The Case Assessment Direction also was sent to the applicant’s e-mail address on April 4, 2016.

6In the course of the discussion about notice of the summary hearing, the applicant’s father advised that there was confusion surrounding who received notice because the applicant turned 18 in December, 2015. Therefore the applicant’s father no longer was her litigation guardian. The confusion was compounded by the fact that the Form 4A Litigation Guardian on Behalf of a Minor states that the applicant’s birthdate is December 19, 1999. The applicant’s father stated that was an error and the applicant’s birthdate is December 19, 1997.

7In light of the confusion, the Tribunal gave the applicant’s father time to contact the applicant to either have her attend the hearing or call in using the teleconference details. He established text contact with the applicant who advised she was not going to attend. The applicant’s father then was given an additional amount of time to establish with the applicant whether or not he would represent her for the purposes of the summary hearing. He could not get those instructions from her. She advised that she did not wish to proceed.

8The respondent submitted that it appeared the applicant had abandoned the Application, and asked that it be dismissed on that basis.

decision and analysis

9The Application is dismissed as abandoned.

10The applicant is no longer a minor. In addition, the applicant did not attend the hearing despite the Notice of Summary Hearing having been sent to her e-mail address on April 4, 2016 and despite being given a further opportunity to attend after the commencement of the hearing. Instead, the applicant chose not to participate, and advised her father she did not wish to proceed with the Application.

11While the applicant’s father was confused with respect to the type of hearing and when it was going to take place, there was no evidence that the applicant was similarly confused. The Case Assessment Direction and the Notice of Summary Hearing, both dated April 4, 2016, were sent to the applicant’s e-mail address on April 4, 2016.

order

12The Application is dismissed as abandoned.