Oliverrie v. Ross, 2010 HRTO 1802

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jennifer Oliverrie

Applicant

-and-

John Ross

Respondent

DecisION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: September 1, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1802

Indexed as: Oliverrie v. Ross

1The applicant filed an Application on December 15, 2008, under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O 1990, c. H. 19, as amended.

2The Application was filed against Community First Developments Inc. (“Community First”) and John Ross, who had been the applicant’s manager. The underlying complaint was first filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on December 2, 2004.

3The applicant delivered a copy of the Application to Community First and to John Ross care of Community First.

4Community First responded to the Tribunal that it did not represent John Ross. On May 1, 2009, the Tribunal directed Community First to provide the last known contact information for John Ross. On May 1, 2009, Community First responded providing the last known contact address it had for Mr. Ross (Sanderstead Avenue in Toronto) and advising that correspondence sent to Mr. Ross at that address was returned by the post office on April 14, 2007 marked “not at this address”. It provided a copy of the returned envelope.

5By letter dated May 15, 2009, the Tribunal advised the parties that as a result of an agreement between the applicant and Community First, Community First was removed as a party from the proceedings. The Tribunal also advised the applicant that it was her responsibility to provide current contact information for John Ross and deliver a copy of the Application to him or the Tribunal could not proceed with the Application against him.

6On June 11, 2009, the applicant sent a copy of the Application to a John Ross at an address on Jakes Avenue in Toronto. The Tribunal sent a confirmation of receipt of Application to this address on June 23, 2009 and a Notice of Mediation on June 25, 2009.

7Mr. Ross wrote to the Tribunal advising that he was not the John Ross named in the Application as he had never heard of Jennifer Oliverrie and had worked elsewhere for 35 years.

8The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on July 6, 2009 with a copy of Mr. Ross’s correspondence and advised her that it was her responsibility to locate the correct John Ross and deliver the Application to him. She was given an additional 30 days to locate and serve Mr. Ross.

9On August 6, 2009, the applicant sought an extension of 30 days to locate Mr. Ross and this extension was granted. She sought a further extension which was granted until November 17, 2009. The Tribunal granted further extensions on November 17, 2009, January 15, 2010, and on March 12, 2010.

10In its letter of March 12, 2010, the applicant was advised that the Tribunal could not grant further extensions beyond May 2010 and required some evidence of her efforts to locate Mr. Ross.

11On May 10, 2010, the applicant sent the Tribunal a statement of delivery confirming that she had sent a letter to John Ross at Sanderstead Avenue, the same address that the Tribunal and Community First had advised her was not the current address for the John Ross named in the Application. She also asked for an extension of time to locate Mr. Ross if the present address was not the correct one. The applicant asked the Tribunal to “intervene and provide the necessary support” to locate Mr. Ross.

12On May 20, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction advising the applicant that it was not satisfied that the applicant had delivered a copy of the Application to the respondent John Ross and that it appeared to the Tribunal that the applicant could not locate the John Ross named in the 2004 complaint despite being granted almost one year to do so.

13The Tribunal indicated that It would not be fair, just or expeditious to keep this Application open any longer and as there was no indication that John Ross has had Notice of the Application and, in these circumstances, the Tribunal could not proceed with the Application against him.

14The Direction gave notice to the applicant that the Tribunal would dismiss the Application on the basis that it could not proceed with the Application in the absence of the applicant providing the Tribunal with contact information for the John Ross named in the original Commission complaint. The applicant was directed to provide submissions, if she wished to do so, within 30 days of the date of the Direction.

15On June 16, 2010, the applicant advised the Tribunal that she has reason to believe that John Ross is evading service and that she had reason to believe that John Ross lived at 9 Sanderstead Avenue in Toronto. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant and requested that she provide all of her reasons for believing that John Ross is residing at that address within 30 days of receipt of the letter.

16On July 22, the applicant responded to the Tribunal. The applicant was unable to provide any reasons for her belief that John Ross resided at Sanderstead Avenue. The applicant advised that she attended at the Sanderstead Avenue address on several occasions but had not seen him there.

17The applicant did state that the writing on the returned mailings to the address provided by Community First look the same to her as the handwriting of John Ross. The applicant provided samples of what she states is the signature of John Ross.

18I have reviewed the material provided by the applicant and am unable to find that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that John Ross is currently resident on Sanderwood Avenue and is evading delivery of a copy of the Application. In all the circumstances and given the lengthy passage of time since there has been any reason to believe that there is an available correct address for John Ross, I find that this Applicant can not be continued against John Ross and is accordingly dismissed.