Kandid v. Heckhausen, 2010 HRTO 542

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kamea Kandid Applicant

-and-

Rosetta Heckhausen and Georges Haroutiun Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: March 12, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 542 Indexed as: Kandid v. Heckhausen

1This is an Application filed on August 24, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code").

2By Interim Decision dated November 10, 2009, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions explaining how her Application raised matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide: 2009 HRTO 1920. The applicant was directed to serve her submissions on the respondents and file the same with the Tribunal within 21 days of receiving the Interim Decision. Further, the applicant was told that she may wish to consult the Applicant's Guide, available on the Tribunal's website or from the Registrar's office and pages 2-3 of the Guide, which set out sources of assistance that may be available to her.

3On November 23 and 25, 2009, the Tribunal received email communication from the applicant seeking clarification of procedure. The Registrar referred the applicant back to the Tribunal's Interim Decision.

4No submissions were received so on January 28, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") which directed that the applicant advise the Tribunal of her intentions in writing with respect to this Application within 10 days of the date of the CAD. The Tribunal further directed that if the applicant intends to continue her Application, she should file at the same time the submissions required by the Interim Decision, together with an explanation of why she did not file her submissions in accordance with the Interim Decision. The Tribunal stated that if the applicant did not comply with the direction, the Tribunal would deem the applicant to have abandoned the Application and the Application would be dismissed.

5On February 5, 2010, the applicant filed a letter with the Tribunal stating:

The applicant intends to continue with her Application; however, due to time constrains [sic] she is not able to file additional documents at this moment. The advice given to the applicant by the Tribunal was useless. Legal help is not aware of internal workings of the Tribunal and it cannot answer how Rob Wells managed to take the Christian Heritage Party, Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Catholic Insight magazine and Ezra Levant to the Tribunal. Only Tribunal knows why certain decisions were made.

The applicant will be filing a new complaint.

6The letter was not copied to the respondents as required by the Tribunal's Rules. By email dated February 8, 2010, telephone call with the applicant on March 3, 2010 and subsequent email on March 8, 2010, Tribunal staff reminded the applicant of her obligation to forward a copy of her "submissions" to the respondents and copy the Tribunal on the same, or file a Form 23 (Statement of Delivery). While the Tribunal has received several emails from the applicant stating that she has sent the respondents a copy of her letter to the Tribunal from "Jan 5th", to date, the Tribunal has not received confirmation in accordance with its directions such that it can confirm who was copied and on what date.

7Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the applicant has abandoned her Application. While the applicant has stated that she "intends" to continue with her Application, the applicant must also comply with the Tribunal's rules and directions in order to demonstrate her intent and to allow the Application to continue to be processed. I do not find her letter to be responsive to the Tribunal's directions. She has not provided the submissions required to allow this matter to move forward, nor has the Tribunal received the required confirmation that her letter has been sent to the respondents. In the circumstances, I find that she has abandoned her application and it is therefore dismissed.