Chantal Sinotte v. Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Ministry of Finance and Ruth McLaughlin, 2016 HRTO 756

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Chantal Sinotte

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Ministry of Finance And Ruth McLaughlin

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: June 2, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 756 Indexed as: Sinotte v. Ontario (Finance)

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 June 10, 2015.

2Pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction dated February 11, 2016, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be convened to determine whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis the Application was untimely and/or on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that the Application would succeed. In the Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal directed that the Summary Hearing would proceed by way of teleconference and advised the parties that a Notice of Summary Hearing would be sent to them by the Registrar’s office.

3The Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the parties on April 4, 2016 advising that the summary hearing would commence at 9:30 a.m. on June 2, 2016. The Notice of Summary Hearing also advised the parties how to connect to the teleconference. The Notice of Summary Hearing was mailed to the applicant at the address provided by her to the Tribunal and was not returned as undeliverable.

4I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the Summary Hearing.

5The Summary Hearing was convened by teleconference on June 2, 2016, at the scheduled time. The respondents attended the summary hearing and were represented by counsel. The applicant was not in attendance at the commencement of the hearing.

6In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. before proceeding.

7At 10:00 a.m. the applicant was not in attendance nor had the applicant communicated with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend.

8In the circumstances, the Application was dismissed on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the Application.