Sheikh v. Canadian Youth Public Outreach, 2017 HRTO 1166

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Saima Sheikh

Applicant

-and-

Canadian Youth Public Outreach and Obay Albatnuni

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana Date: September 8, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1166 Indexed as: Sheikh v. Canadian Youth Public Outreach

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On July 21, 2017, I issued a CAD cancelling the merits hearing scheduled for August 9, 2017, and directing that a preliminary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no properly named respondent.

3I also directed the parties to provide written submissions and any documents or evidence to support their positions about whether there is a properly named respondent no later than 35 days after the date of the CAD.

4In the CAD, I indicated that the Registrar will schedule a half-day preliminary hearing by conference call.

5Since the CAD was issued, the Tribunal has been attempting to obtain dates from the parties to schedule the preliminary hearing by telephone. On July 14, 2017, the Registrar contacted the parties and advised them to select five mutually agreeable dates from a list and to provide these dates to the Tribunal by July 19, 2017. The respondents attempted to contact the applicant to that end. According to the information provided by the respondents, the applicant did not respond.

6The respondents wrote to the Tribunal on July 19, 2017, advising the Registrar of their efforts to communicate with the applicant. The respondents provided their availability and copied this email to the applicant.

7On July 24, 2017, the Registrar wrote to the applicant by email directing the applicant to select three dates from the list provided and to provide these dates to the Tribunal by July 26, 2017.

8On August 8, 2017, the respondents contacted the Registrar regarding the applicant’s failure to respond to provide her availability. The respondents also requested that the applicant be deemed in default of the Tribunal, declared a vexatious litigant and that her Application be dismissed as abandoned.

9On August 22, 2017, the applicant sent the Tribunal and the respondents several documents, including a letter outlining a number of objections and concerns about the CAD, the scheduling of the preliminary hearing and the process to date. The materials do not appear to provide dates for the scheduling of the preliminary hearing.

10The Tribunal issued a second CAD on August 30, 2017, directing the applicant to provide her availability for the preliminary hearing and to respond to the Registrar, with a copy to the respondents, at the latest by September 5, 2017. The CAD also warned that if the applicant did not respond and comply with the directions set out in the CAD by September 5, 2017, her Application would be dismissed as abandoned. The CAD was sent by both email and regular mail to the applicant and was not returned as undeliverable. The email address to which the CAD was delivered was also the address from which the applicant sent the Tribunal various documents on August 22, 2017. I am therefore satisfied that the applicant had notice of the Tribunal’s numerous attempts to reschedule this matter.

11As of the date of this Decision the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s directions and the time for doing so has now passed.

12In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

13The Application is dismissed.