Zenon Macyshyn v. Sunrise Health Region, 2010 HRTO 1613

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zenon Macyshyn

Applicant

-and-

Sunrise Health Region

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: July 28, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1613

Indexed as: Macyshyn v. Sunrise Health Region

1This Application was filed on March 24, 2010, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin, ethnic origin, family status, marital status, and age in the provision of goods, services or facilities.

2The Application identifies the date of the last alleged event as March 20, 2007, more than one year before the filing of the Application. In the Application, the applicant explains the delay in filing as follows:

I have a major issue with the Toronto District Catholic School Board and Ryerson University once completing the applications to these items I now want to apply this application as well as it is of a [sic] urgent nature.

3On May 17, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”), indicating that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s power to decide (jurisdiction) because:

a. it was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination and the Application does not fully explain how the delay was incurred in good faith and why there has been no substantial prejudice to any affected person; and

b. the events described in the Application do not appear to be connected to Ontario.

4The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions regarding the timeliness issue and advised him that, should he fail to file submissions as directed, the Tribunal may either:

a. make its decision based only on the information contained in the Application; or

b. consider the failure to respond as an abandonment of the Application and dismiss it on that basis.

5The applicant has failed to respond to the Notice and the time for doing so has elapsed.

6In the circumstances, I find that the applicant’s failure to respond constitutes an abandonment of the Application.

7Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.