HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sharon Weekes
Applicant
-and-
COAST Mental Health, The Regional Municipality of Halton Police Services Board, Jason Barr, Staff Sgt. Andrews Officer Proulx, Sgt. Brown and Sgt. Crawford
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Weekes v. Coast Mental Health
APPEARANCES BY
Sharon Weekes, Applicant
No one appearing
Coast Mental Health
Peter MacTavish, Counsel
The Regional Municipality of Halton Police Services Board, Staff Sgt. Andrews, Officer Proulx, Sgt. Brown and Sgt. Crawford
Adam Guy, Counsel
Reasons for Decision
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences and disability.
2In a Case Assessment Direction issued on September 26, 2016 the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held determine whether this Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
3On September 27, 2016 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties confirming that the summary hearing would take place on November 28, 2016 commencing at 9:30 a.m. by telephone conference call. This date was adjourned on consent.
4On July 18, 2017 the Tribunal issued a second Notice of Summary Hearing confirming that the summary hearing would take place on October 2, 2017 commencing at 1:30 p.m. by telephone conference call
5These Notices were sent by email and regular mail.
6There is no indication that the Notices of Summary Hearing was not received and I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing.
7In fact the applicant communicated with the Tribunal on October 2, 2017 that she would prefer not to attend the conference call. This communication was returned to the applicant as it had not been copied to the respondents.
8The applicant indicated that she was uncomfortable attending the hearing for reasons that do not bear disclosing at this stage. Suffice it to say that if the applicant’s communications were framed as an adjournment request it would have been denied.
9The applicant was not on the conference call at the commencement of the scheduled hearing. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 2:00 p.m. before proceeding. I also informed the respondents that here had been communication from the applicant which had not been copied to them.
10At 2:00 p.m. the applicant was not on the conference. I indicated to the respondents that in the normal course I would have dismissed the Application as abandoned and the information I had received from the applicant but which had not been copied to the respondents would not change that result. Neither respondent had any submissions or any objection to the Application being dismissed as abandoned.
11In the circumstances, the Application was dismissed at the hearing on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of October, 2017.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair