Enrique Jimenez v. Radmila Pejovic, 2010 HRTO 1756

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Enrique Jimenez Applicant

-and-

Radmila Pejovic Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: August 25, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1756 Indexed as: Jimenez v. Radmila Pejovic

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on February 22, 2010 alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of creed.

2The respondent filed a Response on May 4, 2010, as well as a Request for an Order During Proceedings. The respondent requests the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that the Application fails to establish a prima facie case and fails to identify a religion that would constitute a “creed” within the meaning of the Code.

3The applicant filed a Reply on May 7, 2010.

4On May 25, 2010, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1170, ordering that a conference call be scheduled to hear the parties’ oral submissions with respect to the respondent’s Request to dismiss.

5On June 6, 2010, the applicant wrote the Tribunal and indicated that he was taking his complaint to another law enforcement body and “did not see any reason why [he] should attend a conference call.”

6On June 21, 2010, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant requesting his written confirmation as to dates and times that he would be able to participate in a conference call as set out in the Interim Decision. The Tribunal received no correspondence or communications from the applicant in response to this letter.

7On July 27, 2010, the Tribunal again wrote to the applicant advising that the Tribunal has attempted to contact him to consult about scheduling the conference call. This letter requested the applicant to advise the Tribunal as to his intentions with the respect to the Application. The letter indicated that if the applicant did not response within ten days of the date of the letter the Tribunal would deem the applicant to have abandoned the Application and close the file.

8The applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s correspondence and the timeline for doing so has elapsed.

9In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

10The Application is dismissed.