Katrina D’Alesio v. Romarah Incorporated o/a Goodness Me! Natural Food Mart, 2016 HRTO 733

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Katrina D’Alesio

Applicant

-and-

Romarah Incorporated o/a Goodness Me! Natural Food Mart

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: May 30, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 733

Indexed as: D’Alesio v. Romarah Incorporated

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging that the respondent discriminated against her. The respondent filed a Response denying the allegations against it.

2On her Application, the applicant provided both a mailing address and an email address. She filed her Reply from the email address. None of the Tribunal’s communications to the applicant have been returned as being undeliverable. She has not advised the Tribunal that either address has changed.

3A Notice of Hearing dated January 21, 2016 was issued by regular mail and email to the parties, scheduling a hearing for June 6, 2016 (“the Notice”). The Notice set out the parties’ disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“the Rules”).

4Subsequent to mediation, which the parties attended in December 2015, and after the Notice was issued, the respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing. The applicant did not respond to this request. An Interim Decision dated February 24, 2016 was issued denying the respondent’s request for summary hearing. It was sent by regular mail and email to the applicant and neither was returned to the Tribunal.

5A Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated May 19, 2016 was issued by the Tribunal when the applicant failed to comply with her disclosure obligations as set out in the Notice. The Tribunal directed the applicant to comply with her disclosure obligations by May 26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. and warned that if she did not, or did not communicate at all with the Tribunal by that time, then her Application would be dismissed as abandoned. The CAD was sent by regular mail and email to the parties and was not returned to the Tribunal as being undeliverable.

6The respondent, on May 19, 2016, wrote to the Tribunal, advising that its disclosure package was sent to the applicant’s mailing address, but had been returned. It inquired whether the Tribunal had a new mailing address for the applicant. As set out above, the applicant has not advised the Tribunal about a change in address.

7The applicant has not complied with the Tribunal’s directions or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal.

8In light of the applicant’s failure to comply with the directions contained in the Notice and the CAD, the Application is dismissed as abandoned. Accordingly, the June 6, 2016 hearing date is cancelled.