PAY EQUITY HEARINGS TRIBUNAL
PE 0723-01 Hull-Thomson Inc., Applicant v. Lorna J. Keen, Respondent
Before: Mary Ellen Cummings, Chair and Members, Pauline R. Seville and Margaret Kvetan
Cite as: Hull-Thomson Inc. (April 18, 2002) 0723-01 (P.E.H.T.)
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, APRIL 18, 2002
This is an Application objecting to a Review Officer’s Order dated June 11, 2001.
- By letter dated April 2, 2002, counsel for Hull-Thomson Limited (the Applicant) advised that it wished to withdraw the Application. In a letter dated April 10, 2002, the Deputy Registrar wrote to the Respondent and the Interested Party, indicating she had been advised that counsel for the Respondent had advised of an intention to oppose the withdrawal. The Deputy Registrar directed counsel to provide his submissions by April 17, 2002 adding:
Should the Tribunal not receive Mr. Deluzio’s submissions by that date, it will be assumed that the withdrawal is on consent.
Counsel for the respondent wrote to the Tribunal on April 11, 2002 advising that “..I have no instructions to object to the withdrawal of the application….”, and asking that the error in the Deputy Registrar’s letter be corrected. On the same date, the Deputy Registrar confirmed she had received the latest correspondence, and reiterated that counsel had until April 17, 2002 to seek instructions and make any submissions he wanted about the withdrawal.
That communication precipitated a lengthy letter from counsel for the Respondent, dated April 12. Counsel expressed concern about the legal costs his client has endured, and her ongoing desire to receive the benefit of the Order that was issued in her favour. Counsel indicated that he was considering the enforcement options available. Counsel then asked the Tribunal to advise if it intended to compel the attendance of the Applicant at the scheduled hearing if the Respondent objects to the withdrawal. The Tribunal declines to answer such a hypothetical question.
No further submissions have been received from the Respondent. To put the matter simply, counsel for the Respondent has not objected to the withdrawal of this Application. We hasten to add that neither has the Respondent consented to the withdrawal. The Interested Party does not object to the withdrawal of Application.
Assuming, without deciding, that there may be appropriate circumstances where the Tribunal would not permit a party to unilaterally withdraw its Application, there is no reason in this case to deny the Applicant’s request. This Application is withdrawn. The hearing dates are hereby cancelled.
Either the Respondent or the Pay Equity Office may now seek to enforce the Review Officer’s Order of June 11, 2001.
Dated at Toronto this 18th day of April 2002.
Mary Ellen Cummings,
Chair
Pauline R. Seville,
Member
Margaret Kvetan,
Member