Jilek v. Toronto Community Housing, 2011 HRTO 1950

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Barbara Jilek

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Community Housing

Respondents

decisION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: October 28, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1950

Indexed as: Jilek v. Toronto Community Housing

1This is an Application filed on June 9, 2009, pursuant to section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant alleges that her right to be free from discrimination in the provision of goods and services, in this case housing, has been infringed by the respondent on the basis of her being in receipt of public assistance and association with persons who are in receipt of public assistance. The applicant also alleges reprisal.

3In its Response, the respondent stated that the issues raised in this Application are currently the subject of an ongoing proceeding at the Landlord and Tenant Board. In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) issued on September 22, 2011, I directed the parties to provide their submissions with respect to the status of the other proceeding and whether or not this Application should be deferred. I also directed the parties to identify their witnesses and provide will-says for them forthwith.

4On October 18, 2011, the respondent advised that the other proceeding had been adjourned and the applicant had taken no steps to re-schedule the case. The respondent further advised that in an effort to clarify the status of the landlord and tenant matter he had made several attempts to contact the applicant’s solicitor in this case, but that this individual was not responding to messages left with her. The applicant did not file with the Tribunal any submissions in response to the respondent’s submissions.

5In a further CAD issued on October 19, 2011, I indicted that there was reason to believe that the applicant may have abandoned this Application. The applicant had not communicated with the Tribunal for some time. By her representative she had apparently not responded to attempts by the respondent to contact her. She had also not responded to my Directions in the September 22, 2011 CAD to identify her witnesses and provide will-says for them forthwith. I also note that neither party has complied with the requirements of the Rules of Procedure for the production of documents upon which they intend to rely although given notice of these requirements in the Confirmation of Hearing provided to the parties on June 9,2011 and the hearing is scheduled for November 2, 2011.

6In a CAD dated October 19, 2011, I directed that if the applicant intended to proceed further with this Application that she communicate her intention to do so in writing within seven days of the date of the CAD, failing which the Application will be dismissed as abandoned. In order to ensure that the Applicant received the CAD, it was sent both to her solicitor and to the applicant directly at the address she has provided to the Tribunal. As of the date of writing this Decision neither the applicant nor her solicitor have contacted the Tribunal, although directed to do so.

7In all the circumstances I find that the applicant no longer intends to proceed with this Application and it ought to be dismissed as abandoned.

ORDER

8The Application is dismissed as abandoned. The hearing scheduled for November 2, 3 and 4, 2011, is cancelled.