Freitag v. Municipality of Penetanguishene, 2011 HRTO 704

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Henry Freitag Applicant

-and-

Municipality of Penetanguishene Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: April 12, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 704 Indexed as: Freitag v. Penetanguishene (Municipality)

1The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement (Form 18), pursuant to s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on October 19, 2009. On November 20, 2009, the respondent filed a Response to an Application for Contravention of Settlement (Form 19).

2Section 45.9(3) provides:

If a settlement of an application made under section 34 or 35 is agreed to in writing and signed by the parties, a party who believes that another party has contravened the settlement may make an application to the Tribunal for an order under subsection (8),

(a) within six months after the contravention to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of contraventions, within six months after the last contravention in the series.

3On February 1, 2011, the Tribunal delivered to the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“Notice”), indicating that it appears the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for the following reason:

A review of the Application for Contravention of Settlement fails to identify how any term of a settlement of an Application made under the Code has been contravened or breached.

4In the Notice, the Tribunal required written submissions from the applicant addressing the above issue by March 3, 2011. The Tribunal also indicated that if the applicant did not file written submissions by the required date, the Tribunal would make its decision based only on the information in the Application, or may consider the failure to respond as an abandonment of the Application and dismiss the Application on that basis.

5On February 7, 2011, the Tribunal received brief correspondence from the applicant. The applicant, however, did not provide any submissions in response to the issue raised in the Notice, identifying how any term of a settlement of an Application made under the Code has been contravened or breached.

6In response to the applicant’s February 7, 2011 correspondence, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant on February 9, 2011, directing the applicant’s attention to the Notice issued on February 1, 2011, and reminding the applicant that submissions were due no later than March 3, 2011.

7To date, the Tribunal has not received submissions from the applicant in response to the Notice, nor has the Tribunal otherwise heard from the applicant concerning this Application since his February 7, 2011 correspondence to the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.