Darlene Burkett v. Red Hill Co-operative Homes Inc., Bridget Bayliss and The Agency for Cooperative Housing, 2016 HRTO 684

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Darlene Burkett

Applicant

-and-

Red Hill Co-operative Homes Inc., Bridget Bayliss and The Agency for Cooperative Housing

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: May 18, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 684 Indexed as: Burkett v. Red Hill Co-operative Homes Inc., Bridget Bayliss and The Agency for Cooperative Housing

1This is Decision on Reconsideration initiated by the Tribunal, pursuant to section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which states:

(1)Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

(2)Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules. [Emphasis added.]

2In a Decision, 2016 HRTO 564, issued on April 28, 2016, the Tribunal dismissed this Application on the basis that it had been abandoned. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not complied with the direction (set out in its April 26, 2016 Case Assessment Direction) that the applicant was to communicate with it by noon on April 28, 2016, to advise whether she was able to participate in the hearing scheduled for the following day.

3Unbeknownst to the Tribunal, at the time it issued this Decision, someone on behalf of the applicant had faxed a letter to the Tribunal advising she was ill and seeking an adjournment. The fax stamp on the letter showed that it was faxed to the Tribunal at approximately 2:30 p.m., somewhat after the noon deadline, but before the Decision was prepared and released.

4In light of this correspondence, it is clear that the applicant had not abandoned her Application.

Order

5The Tribunal makes the following orders:

a. the Tribunal, of its own motion, has reconsidered its Decision, 2016 HRTO 564, dismissing this Application;

b. by May 31, 2016, the applicant is required to deliver to the Tribunal and respondent detailed submissions concerning her ability to proceed with a hearing;

c. these submissions must contain information about when the applicant might be able to proceed;

d. the information in these submissions must be supported by documentation from one or more medical practitioners; and

e. by June 7, 2016, the respondent may deliver to the applicant and the Tribunal its submissions, if any, in response.