Jasavala v. Slywka, 2010 HRTO 2525

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rezbeh Jasavala

Applicant

-and-

Frank Slywka

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: December 22, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2525 Indexed as: Jasavala v. Slywka

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 October 8, 2010. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Application and attempted to deliver the Application to the respondent by regular mail at the address provided by the applicant. The envelope was stamped “Return to Sender, Moved/Unknown” and “No Unit” was written beside the street name on the envelope, before it was returned to the Tribunal.

2The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on November 12, 2010, advising the applicant that it cannot process the Application without an accurate address for the respondent, and requiring the applicant to provide an address that the applicant can demonstrate is current, complete and accurate. The Tribunal’s letter contained information with respect to Rule 6.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and a reference to the Applicant’s Guide which provides examples of how contact information can be found or verified.

3The applicant provided the Tribunal with another address for the respondent on November 29, 2010. On December 1, 2010, the Tribunal again issued a Notice of Application, again attempting to deliver it to the respondent. This second Notice was also returned and marked “Return to Sender, Moved/Unknown”.

4The purpose of this Interim Decision is to direct the applicant to provide further information with respect to contact information for the respondent.

5As explained by the Tribunal in Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347 and Osman v. Elle Productions Security, 2009 HRTO 1426, while the Tribunal forwards completed applications to respondents, it is the responsibility of applicants to provide accurate contact information, and the Tribunal relies on applicants to provide a correct address for respondents named in their applications. 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.

6In the present circumstances, it appears that the contact information provided by the applicant for the respondent is incorrect. The Tribunal directs the applicant to verify whether or not the most recently provided address is accurate and to provide the most current and complete contact information for the respondent. The applicant is required to provide information to demonstrate why the address provided in the Application is believed to be correct. In other words, the applicant must explain the reason or reasons for believing that the address being provided is the respondent’s address.

7The Tribunal makes the following order:

a. If the applicant wishes to proceed with this Application, the applicant shall, within 20 days of the date of this Interim Decision, provide a current, complete and accurate address for the respondent and explain the steps taken to ensure that the address is current, complete and accurate; and

b. If the applicant believes that any address previously provided is in fact current, complete and accurate contact information for the respondent, then the applicant shall provide the reasons for that belief, and the steps taken to verify that the address is current, complete and accurate.

8I am not seized of this matter.