HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Margaret Strang Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard Date: November 7, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1467 Indexed as: Strang v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services)
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on February 12, 2016.
2In Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 834 issued on June 21, 2016 this Application was deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration.
3On March 7, 2017 the Tribunal wrote to the parties for information regarding the status of the other proceeding. In this correspondence the applicant was directed to advise of the status of the other proceeding. The applicant responded but did not deliver her responding submissions to the other parties.
4In an email dated April 11, 2017 the Tribunal directed that the applicant deliver her submissions to the other parties and respond to the issues raised in the March 7, 2017 letter. The applicant was also directed that if she wished to reactivate her Application she must file a Form 10.
5In correspondence issued on April 20, 2017, the applicant was directed to respond to the March 7, 2017 letter by May 1, 2017 failing which the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.
6The applicant responded to the April 20, 2017 correspondence with a letter dated April 28 but received on May 1, 2017. The applicant advised that the case had been referred to the Tribunal by the Superior Court. The applicant did not file a Form 10 and did not file a copy of any decision or other documents indicating that the other proceeding had concluded.
7On June 9, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) stating “At this point it is entirely unclear what other proceedings there are and which of them may be ongoing or have concluded”. In the circumstances the Tribunal made the following Directions to the applicant:
a. If the applicant wishes to reactivate this Application she is directed to deliver and file a Request for an Order During Proceedings within 14 days of the date of this CAD.
b. In her Request, if any is made, the applicant must explain why this Application should be reactivated. The applicant should list each of the other proceedings in which she is involved that relate in some way to the facts and issues she has raised in her Application. The applicant should also state whether any or all these other proceedings have concluded or are ongoing.
c. In her Request, if any is made, the applicant must also provide any document(s) which exist, which would support an assertion that the other proceeding has concluded. This would include any decision from another proceeding or a letter from the affected party advising that the grievance has been withdrawn.
8The applicant did not comply with the June 9, 2017 CAD within the timeline set by the Tribunal.
9On July 14, 2017, the Tribunal issued another CAD reminding the applicant that she had not responded to the Directions in the June 9, 2017 CAD and the time for doing so had passed. The Tribunal directed the applicant as follows: “If the applicant wishes to pursue this Application further she must deliver and file submissions in response to the direction above within 7 days of the date of this CAD failing which the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.”
10On July 21, 2017, the applicant filed various documents with the Tribunal that are not in compliance with the June 9, 2017 or July 14, 2017 CADs. More specifically, the applicant failed to file a Request for an Order During Proceeding requesting that the Application be re-activated or any reasons for re-activation; the list of each of the other proceedings in which she is involved that relate in some way to the facts and issues she has raised in her Application; an indication of whether any or all these other proceedings have concluded or are ongoing; and any document(s) which exist, that would support an assertion that the other proceeding has concluded.
11On September 15, 2017, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings requesting the dismissal of the Application (“request to dismiss”) for failure to comply to the Tribunal’s June 9, 2017 and July 14, 2017 CADs.
12On September 20, 2017, the Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the request to dismiss the Application as abandoned no later than fourteen days after the request was delivered to her. The Tribunal warned the applicant that it may dismiss the Application as abandoned if the applicant fails to respond to the request to dismiss.
13The applicant failed to respond to the request to dismiss and the time for doing so has passed.
14In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.
15The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of November, 2017.
“Signed by”
Josée Bouchard Vice-chair