Lieung v. Ontario Court of Justice, 2011 HRTO 495

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yieu Khun Lieung

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Court of Justice – Ministry of the Attorney General

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: March 10, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 495

Indexed as: Lieung v. Ontario Court of Justice

1This Application was filed on April 20, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination in services, on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability and sex. His allegations concern the imposition of a lengthy sentence, the failure to inform him about his right to appeal, the failure to advise him concerning his right to apply for parole and the language barriers imposed by requiring the applicant to complete a “correctional course.”

2The Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) on August 24, 2010, which advised the applicant that his Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, because he appeared to be challenging the decision or outcome of an adjudicative process. The applicant asked for an extension to respond to the NOID, in order to seek legal advice and translation services. This Request was granted.

3On October 15, 2010, the applicant attempted to file submissions, but they were in Chinese. All previous communication filed on behalf of the applicant was in English. The written submissions were returned to the applicant with the instructions to provide written submissions in either English or French by December 29, 2010. Rule 1.11 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice states that the parties are entitled to communicate with the Tribunal in French or English. This letter was copied to Vivian Lee, a Senior Outreach Project Assistant, who had been assisting the applicant with his Application.

4In the NOID, the applicant was advised that failure to file written submissions may be considered by the Tribunal as an abandonment of his file. In the October 15, 2010 letter to the applicant, he was advised that the requirements in the NOID (except the submission deadline) “remain as stated.” The applicant did not respond to this letter. Specifically, he has not sent in written submissions in English or French as directed and the time to do so has passed.

5In the circumstances, this Application is dismissed as abandoned, and the Tribunal’s file is closed.