HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Brie Smalldon
Applicant
-and-
Cloud 9 Vape Shoppe
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Bruce Best
Indexed as: Smalldon v. Cloud 9 Vape Shoppe
APPEARANCES
Brie Smalldon, Applicant
No one appearing
Cloud 9 Vape Shoppe, Respondent
Angela Pijl, Representative
1On May 11, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction in this Application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, directing a preliminary hearing to determine whether the Application should be dismissed as the issues had been appropriately dealt with in a proceeding under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. A Notice of Preliminary Hearing was sent to the parties on May 29, 2017, indicating that the hearing of the Application would take place by teleconference commencing at 9:30 AM on August 2, 2017, and provided the information necessary to connect to the call. The Notice was delivered by email and regular mail to the last address provided by the applicant, and was not returned as undeliverable.
2The Notice included the following warning:
FAILURE TO ATTEND THE HEARING
If you do not attend the hearing after receiving proper notice, the HRTO may proceed in your absence (if you are a respondent or intervener) or dismiss the Application as abandoned (if you are the applicant).
3I am satisfied that the applicant received notice of the hearing.
4Angela Pijl, the owner of the respondent, called in at the time specified in the Notice. The applicant, however, did not call in. In accordance with the Tribunal’s usual practice, I waited 30 minutes before proceeding.
5At 10:00 AM, the applicant had still not called in to the hearing, nor had she communicated with the Tribunal to explain her failure to attend.
6In the circumstances, I deem the Application to be abandoned, and it is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of October, 2017.
“Signed by”
Bruce Best
Vice-chair