Issaq v. Leggett & Platt Canada Co., 2010 HRTO 630

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Abdiwahid Issaq

Applicant

-and-

Leggett & Platt Canada Co. and Dan Maycock

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart
Date: March 23, 2010
Citation: 2010 HRTO 630
Indexed as: Issaq v. Leggett & Platt Canada

1This is an Application dated May 15, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2By letter dated July 23, 2009, the Tribunal confirmed receipt of the Application, but indicated that the Application was incomplete for the following reasons: no Commission complaint was attached; and no Statement of Delivery was provided to indicate that the Application form (Form TR-1) and the complaint had been served on the respondents.

3The applicant was advised that no further steps would be taken to process the Application until it was complete, and the applicant was told to provide the missing information within 21 days from the date of the letter, failing which the Application may be dismissed.

4A copy of the Tribunal’s letter was sent to the respondents at the address provided, but this correspondence was returned as undeliverable.

5On March 5, 2010, the Tribunal sent a further letter to the applicant, stating that more than 21 days had passed since the Tribunal’s previous letter and the Application remained incomplete. The applicant was advised that s. 43(2).1 of the Code provides that the Tribunal shall not dispose of an application without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions. The applicant was told to contact the Tribunal within ten days of the date of the letter if he wanted to make oral submissions, failing which the Tribunal would dismiss the Application.

6The Tribunal did not hear from the applicant within ten days of the March 5, 2010 letter. To date, the applicant still has not filed a complete Application form which includes his underlying human rights complaint nor has he filed any Statement of Delivery form. The applicant has been given opportunities to correct these defects, and has failed to do so.

7As the applicant has been given notice of the Tribunal’s intention to dismiss his Application and has been advised of his right to make oral submissions but has not requested the opportunity to do so, he has waived his right to make oral submissions and this matter can be addressed in writing.

8The Application is dismissed as abandoned.