Coombs v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 1525

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Michael Coombs Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: August 30, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1525 Indexed as: Coombs v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

Decision

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 24, 2009. The Application identifies the applicant's mother as his alternate contact and as the individual handling the Application.

2On January 13, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Mediation to the parties confirming that mediation of the Application would take place on May 3, 2010.

3Following a request from the applicant's mother, the venue for the mediation was changed; however, the scheduled date of May 3, 2010, remained the same.

4On April 1, 2010, the applicant's mother emailed the Tribunal and requested that the mediation be re-scheduled until after September 15, 2010, because she had obtained new employment and was still in the initial probationary period. This correspondence was not copied to the respondent. The applicant did not attend the scheduled mediation on May 3, 2010, and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain his failure to attend.

5On May 7, 2010, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, in care of his mother, directing that they provide confirmation with respect to the applicant's intentions regarding the Application. The correspondence advised that a failure to respond to the letter in writing within ten days would be deemed an abandonment of the Application. The Tribunal's letter was mailed to the applicant's address provided in the Application and was not returned as undeliverable.

6On June 21, 2010, the applicant's mother emailed the Tribunal noting that she was responding to both correspondence and a telephone call from the Tribunal. She advised that due to upcoming surgery she would not be able to confirm a date for mediation until post recovery. The Tribunal received no confirmation that this June 21, 2010 email from the applicant's mother was copied to the respondent.

7On June 22, 2010, the Tribunal emailed the applicant's mother and reminded that, pursuant to Rule 1.12, all correspondence with the Tribunal must also be copied other parties. The Tribunal received no confirmation that the applicant's mother copied her June 21, 2010 correspondence to the respondent.

8On July 26, 2010, the Tribunal emailed the applicant's mother and again directed her to copy the respondent on her previous correspondence. The Tribunal also requested that the applicant's mother provide available dates for mediation in November 2010. The Tribunal received no correspondence in response to the Tribunal's email.

9On May 13, 2011, the Tribunal emailed the parties and asked the parties to provide the available dates from July 2011 onwards for mediation. The email noted that the parties were required to provide their proposed dates no later than May 27, 2011. Counsel for the respondent replied on May 18, 2011; however, no response was received from the applicant or his mother.

10On June 17, 2011, the Tribunal emailed and called the applicant's mother, as well as sent written correspondence, again requesting that the applicant or his mother confirm the applicant's intentions with respect to the Application. The Tribunal's letter advised that a failure to respond to in writing by June 30, 2011, would be deemed an abandonment of the Application. The Tribunal's letter was couriered to the address provided in the Application and was not returned.

11The Tribunal has received no response from the applicant or his mother and the timelines for doing so have elapsed.

12In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application and, accordingly, the Application is dismissed.