Johnson v. Thorold Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation, 2010 HRTO 1214

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kenneth Johnson

Applicant

-and-

Thorold Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation

Respondent

Interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: May 31, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1214

Indexed as: Johnson v. Thorold Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation ________________________________________________________________

1The Application was filed on September 30, 2009 pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination on the basis of disability and age in the context of housing and goods, facilities and services. The applicant also alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal.

2The Tribunal issued a Decision, 2010 HRTO 685, noting that the applicant had not filed a Reply, and that the time for doing so had elapsed, and dismissing the Application on the basis that its substance had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding. In fact the time for filing the reply had not elapsed.

3On its own motion the Tribunal reconsidered the Decision, 2010 HRTO 787, and did the following:

expedited the determination of the preliminary issue; and

directed the applicant to advise the Tribunal whether he wished to make further submissions on the preliminary issue, either orally or in writing.

4The Tribunal delivered the Reconsideration Decision to the applicant by regular mail at the address identified in his Application. It was not returned. In this case, given that the applicant had been facing eviction, administrative staff from the Tribunal took the further step of contacting the applicant by telephone. The applicant advised that he was “non-committal” about the Application. He did not request an extension of time in which to make submissions, nor did he indicate that he wished to close the Tribunal file. The applicant has not advised the Tribunal that he wishes to make further submissions and the time for doing so has elapsed.

5In the circumstances, it appears the applicant may have abandoned his Application. The applicant is directed to respond in writing to the Tribunal within seven days of the date of this Interim Decision to advise why he failed to respond as directed earlier. If the applicant fails to respond the Application will be dismissed.