Jonathan Schrock v. Lanmar Environmental Solutions Inc., 2011 HRTO 2192

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jonathan Schrock

Applicant

-and-

Lanmar Environmental Solutions Inc.

Respondent

dECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: December 6, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2192

Indexed as: Schrock v. Lanmar Environmental Solutions Inc.

1This is an Application made under s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) dated February 16, 2011. This Decision is further to correspondence sent to the applicant from the Tribunal indicating that the Application could be dismissed if he failed to provide current contact information. It also deals with a request by the respondent that an award of legal expenses be made against the applicant for abuse of the Tribunal’s process by the applicant’s failure to participate in the process beyond filing the Application.

BACKGROUND

2Beyond filing the Application the applicant has not participated in the process. On May 10, 2011, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) delivered the respondent’s Response to the applicant. This materal was returned as undeliverable. Attempts to contact the applicant at the number provided by him were also unsuccessful as the prompt indicated that the number on file was out of service.

3On June 22, 2011, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant requesting that he provide updated contact information to it and the respondent by July 6, 2011. No response was received to this request. As of today’s date, the requested updated contact information has not been provided to the HRTO.

4On September 13, 2011 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant again requesting that the applicant provIde updated contact information by September 23, 2100 failing which the Application might be dismissed as abandoned.

5Rule 1.13 of the HRTO’s Rules and Procedures provides that a party and a party’s representative must notify the Tribunal and all parties and their representatives, in writing, of any change in their contact information, as soon as possible. Rule 5.4 of the HRTO’s Rules and Procedures provides as well that the Tribunal may finally determine an Application without further notice to any person who cannot be contacted by the Tribunal according to the contact information provided to the Tribunal by that person.

6The respondent has requested that the Application not be summarily dismissed but that an Order be made in the amount of its legal expenses to date in defending this Application. The respondent delivered this request on December 2, 2011. The applicant has not to date responded to it.

DECISION

7The applicant has not provided any information to the Tribunal since he filed the Application. He has not responded to the Tribunal’s requests for updated contact information. Those requests were sent using the contact information provided by the applicant. In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application and it is dismissed on that basis.

8While I appreciate and understand the respondent’s request for costs and its frustration with the process, the Tribunal does not have authority to award costs: Dunn v. United Transportation Union, Local 104, 2008 HRTO 405.