Beckford v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 1283

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kasson George Beckford

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: June 28, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1283

Indexed as: Beckford v. Toronto Police Services Board

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on December 16, 2011.

2On January 24, 2012, a Notice of Incomplete Application was sent to the applicant at the address provided in his Application. The Tribunal received the information necessary to complete the Application from the applicant on February 16, 2012 and a Notice of Application was sent to the parties on March 2, 2012. The Notice of Application sent to the applicant was returned to the Tribunal with a notation on the envelope “Not here”.

3Through correspondence dated March 19, 2012, and copied to the applicant, the respondent sought an extension of time to file a Response. In subsequent correspondence to the Tribunal, dated March 30, 2012, the respondent indicated that its March 19, 2012 correspondence sent to the applicant had been returned to their attention with an indication that the applicant no longer reside at the address provided by the applicant.

4On April 4, 2012, the Tribunal sent correspondence to the parties which granted the respondent’s request for an extension of time to file a Response. The correspondence dated April 12, 2012 sent to the applicant, was returned to the Tribunal on April 18, 2012. A new address for the applicant in another municipality was handwritten on the front of the envelope.

5On April 26, 2012 the Tribunal sent correspondence to the applicant at the address in his Application indicating that the Tribunal and counsel for the respondent are in receipt of returned mail for the applicant. The correspondence further indicated that the applicant had not contacted the Tribunal since the initial filing of the Application and that the Tribunal does not have any other means to contact the applicant, including a telephone number or e-mail address. The correspondence directed the applicant to communicate with the Tribunal within ten days of the date of the correspondence so as to provide the parties with a current mailing address. The correspondence indicated that failure to comply with the direction may result in the Application being closed as abandoned.

6On May 23, 2012, the Tribunal also sent correspondence to the applicant at the new address in another municipality that was on one of the returned pieces of correspondence. The correspondence directed that the applicant confirm his current mailing address, and provide any other means of contact, by June 6, 2012. The correspondence indicated that failure to comply with this directive may result in the Application being dismissed as abandoned.

7The applicant has not responded since the initial filing of the Application to the any correspondence that has been sent to either the address in his Application or the new address for the applicant provided in returned correspondence, and the time for doing so has now passed.

8In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

9The Application is dismissed.