Jakobek v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1626, 2010 HRTO 684

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Thomas Jakobek

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1626 and Deaconwood Property Management Inc.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: March 29, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 684

Indexed as: Jakobek v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1626

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 3, 2009, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in housing.

2The respondents did not file Responses. An Interim Decision dated December 8, 2009, 2009 HRTO 2105, was issued explaining that an application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding and setting out the consequences for a respondent who does not respond to an application. The Interim Decision directed that the respondents file a Response within 10 days and warned that the Tribunal may proceed without further notice if the respondents did not file a Response. The Interim Decision was delivered to one of the respondents by email.

3On December 8, 2009, a representative of the respondent Deaconwood Property Management Inc. ("the representative") sent an email to the Tribunal advising that a joint Response was filed for both respondents. In response to a December 9, 2009 email from the Tribunal, the representative advised that the Response was sent by mail.

4As the Tribunal did not receive the Response, it sent another email to the representative on February 1, 2010, advising that it did not have a record of receiving the Response and requesting that it be submitted by email by February 3, 2010. To date, the Tribunal has not received a reply from the representative to its February 3, 2010 email or received the Response.

5The Tribunal directs that the respondents file with the Tribunal their joint or separate Responses within five days of the date of this Interim Decision along with an explanation as to why the Response has not yet been filed and why the respondent(s) did not respond to the Tribunal's February 1, 2010 email.

6If the respondent(s) do not file a joint or separate Responses within the timeframe set out above along with an explanation as to why they have not complied with the Tribunal's earlier directions, the Tribunal will deem the respondents to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application, will deem them to have waived all rights with respect to further notices or participation in the proceeding and may proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to the respondents in accordance with Rule 5.5 as noted in the December 8, 2009 Interim Decision.

7I am not seized of this matter.