S.E. v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1690, 2010 HRTO 2307

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

S. E. by her Next Friend M.O.

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1690 and Lingam Kularatnam

Respondents

Interim decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: November 19, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2307 Indexed as: S.E. v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1690

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on June 21, 2010. The Tribunal attempted unsuccessfully to serve the Application on three of the four named individual respondents, Barbara Rehacek, Charoula Kalomirus and Jay McCall.

2On September 24, 2010, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Requirement to Confirm Address for Delivery with respect to the above three individual respondents. In this Notice, the Tribunal advised the applicant that it had attempted to deliver the Application to the respondents at the address provided, but that it had received a Response from the organizational and other individual respondent saying that these individuals were not residents, directors or unit owners at that address and had had no Notice of the Application.

3The applicant was asked to provide current addresses for these individuals or, in the alternative, reasons why she believed that the address she gave for them was, in fact, current and accurate. She was to have provided such information within 20 days. Now more than 50 days have passed and no further information has been received from the applicant.

4The Tribunal relies on applicants to provide a correct address for respondents named in their applications: Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347. Rule 6.6(b) provides that the Tribunal will not deal with an Application in respect of a respondent who cannot be contacted at the contact information provided by the applicant.

5The contact information provided by the applicant for the respondents is either incorrect or incomplete. The Tribunal has been unable to deliver the Application to the three individual respondents at the address provided. The Tribunal has attempted to obtain corrected information from the applicant to no avail.

6In light of this, the Tribunal cannot continue to deal with the Application vis-à-vis these three individuals. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as against Barbara Rehacek, Charoula Kalomirus and Jay McCall.

7I am not seized of this Application.