Farhad Alavi Mehr v. Toronto Police Service, 53 Division and R.L Ridge, 2012 HRTO 1281

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Farhad Alavi Mehr

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Service, 53 Division and R.L Ridge

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley

Decision Date: July 3, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1281

Indexed As: Mehr v. Toronto Police Services, 53 Division

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in services on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin.

background

2On May 17, 2012, the Applicant failed to attend a summary hearing that had been scheduled to determine whether this Application should be dismissed on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success or that another proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

3On June 13, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction [the “CAD”], in which I considered whether the Applicant had received notice of the May 17th hearing and directed the parties as follows:

The applicant is directed, within seven days of the date of this decision, to advise the Tribunal in writing why he did not attend the conference call. The applicant’s letter, fax or email to the Tribunal is to be copied to the respondent.

If no response is received from the applicant within seven days of the date of this decision, the application will be dismissed as abandoned. If a response is received within that time, the respondent is directed to provide the Tribunal with its position within a further seven days. If the applicant wishes to file a reply to any response from the respondent, he shall have seven days after the respondent’s response is filed in which to do so.

4On June 13, 2012, the CAD was sent to the parties by regular mail, electronic mail and courier. The mailing address used was the most current one provided to the Tribunal by the Applicant (by way of correspondence dated March 20, 2012 from the applicant) and the electronic mail address was the one which the Applicant had previously used in communicating with the Tribunal.

5The CAD sent by courier was returned to the Tribunal with the notation “house under construction; unoccupied”.

6As of the date of this decision, neither the CAD sent by regular mail nor the one sent by electronic mail has been returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable.

7The Tribunal has not received any further notice of a change of address from the applicant. Rule 1.13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure requires parties to notify the Tribunal, in writing, of any change in their contact information, as soon as possible. Furthermore, Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 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.

8The Applicant has not responded to the CAD.

decision

9This Application has been abandoned by the Applicant who is either not responding to correspondence from the Tribunal or has changed addresses and failed to notify the Tribunal of his contact information. Accordingly, this Application is dismissed.