minicounsel

Sparling v. Herman Bardoel, 2012 HRTO 1074 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

May 30, 2012

Sparling v. Herman Bardoel, 2012 HRTO 1074

Case Summary

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of another individual. The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring submissions on whether the application could proceed without a litigation guardian and whether the applicant should be appointed as such. The applicant failed to respond to the direction and a subsequent warning letter. The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary Sparling on behalf of Robert Sparling

Applicant

-and-

Herman Bardoel

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: May 30, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1074

Indexed as: Sparling v. Herman Bardoel

[1] The applicant filed an Application under s. 34(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on May 30, 2011 on behalf of another individual, the claimant.

[2] On January 12, 2012 the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”). The CAD directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether the Application could proceed in the absence of the appointment of a litigation guardian for the claimant and whether the Tribunal ought to appoint the applicant as litigation guardian for the claimant. The CAD directed the applicant to provide these submissions to the Tribunal within three weeks of the date of the CAD. The CAD was couriered to the applicant at the alternative address for service she provided in the Application.

[3] On March 6, 2012 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant noting that she had failed to respond to the CAD. The letter drew the Applicant’s attention to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which state 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. The letter directed the application to respond to the letter by March 16, 2012 with the submissions requested by the CAD. The letter advised the applicant that failure to respond may be considered an abandonment of the Application and it might be dismissed for that reason.

[4] The applicant has not responded to the CAD or the March 6, 2012 letter and the time for doing so has now passed. The Tribunal’s correspondence to her has not been returned and was mailed to the address for service provided by the applicant in the Application.

[5] In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

[6] The Application is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of May, 2012.

“Signed by”

Brian Eyolfson

Vice-chair