HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Christianson

Applicant

-and-

Special Investigations Unit and Steve Gibbons

Respondents

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: January 5, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 8

Indexed as: Christianson v. Special Investigations Unit

[1] On October 10, 2009, the applicant, Michael Christianson, filed a Request for Reconsideration (“Reconsideration”) from a Decision released by the Tribunal on September 23, 2009. That Decision dismissed the Application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned after the applicant failed to attend a September 11, 2009 in-person proceeding. In his Reconsideration, the applicant noted, among other things, that he had not received notice of the proceeding or hearing. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to request submissions from the parties on the applicant’s Reconsideration.

[2] The applicant filed his Application on November 17, 2008, under section 34 of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. A Notice of Hearing (“Notice”) was sent to the parties on May 20, 2009, advising them that the hearing in this matter would take place on September 11, 2009, in Windsor, commencing at 10:00 a.m. The Notice was sent to the applicant at the address provided to him in his Application and was not returned.

[3] In the meantime, on July 29, 2009, the respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) asking the Tribunal to dismiss the Application as being outside its jurisdiction, among other things. The respondents requested that this Request be dealt with in writing. The applicant did not file a Response to the Request, a decision which he suggests in his Reconsideration was deliberate.

[4] The respondents followed up via email, copied to the applicant, to enquire about the status of their Request on August 31, 2009. By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), dated September 2, 2009, I advised the parties that I would use the September 11, 2009 hearing date to hear oral submissions on the respondents’ Request. The applicant asserts he did not receive a copy of the CAD in a timely fashion, an assertion which appears to be correct.

[5] The CAD was sent to the applicant at the address provided to him in his Application, via courier. Tracking information indicates that the package was picked up on September 3, 2009 and delivery attempted on September 4, 2009. The tracking information also indicates that the package was available for pick-up at the Windsor Purolator depot from September 5, 2009 through to September 15, 2009. Contrary to what I said in the Decision dated September 23, 2009, the package containing the CAD was returned to the Tribunal on September 16, 2009. It was not, however, put with the file.

[6] The Reconsideration indicates that the CAD was mailed to the applicant on September 9, 2009, to a different address, and that the applicant received it after the September 11, 2009 proceeding. To that end, the applicant attached a photocopy of an envelope with a date stamp of September 9, 2009 on it. However, there is no indication in the file that there was ever any attempt to mail the CAD to the applicant on that date or at that address.

[7] The parties are directed to provide written submissions on the Reconsideration within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision.

Dated at Toronto, this 5^th^ day of January, 2010.

“Signed by”

Naomi Overend

Vice-chair