Provost v. Penny Doncaster Occupational Therapy Services, 2017 HRTO 999

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lacey Provost

Applicant

-and-

Penny Doncaster Occupational Therapy Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Yasmeena Mohamed
Date: August 4, 2017
Citation: 2017 HRTO 999
Indexed as: Provost v. Penny Doncaster Occupational Therapy Services

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), dated April 25, 2016, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, sex, including sexual harassment and record of offences.

2On August 3, 2016, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) issued an Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 1029, deferring the Application pursuant to Rule 14 of its Rules of Procedure pending completion of another proceeding.

3On June 7, 2017, the Tribunal sent a Deferred Application-Advice of Status (“DAAS”) letter directing the applicant to advise the Tribunal whether the other proceeding is still ongoing and, if possible, when it is expected to be completed, within 30 days of the date of letter. The DAAS letter further advised the applicant that failure to respond to the letter may be considered an abandonment of the Application and it might be dismissed for that reason.

4The applicant has not responded to the DAAS letter and the time for doing so has now expired.

5The Tribunal records indicate that the DAAS letter was sent to the applicant by regular-mail and email to the addresses identified in the Application. As of the date of this Decision, the Tribunal has not received any “returned mail” and\or email notification to indicate that the DAAS letter was not delivered and/or received by the applicant.

6In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

7The Application is dismissed.