Vail v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2012 HRTO 1319

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mitch Alexander Vail Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: July 4, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1319 Indexed as: Vail v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

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 October 25, 2011.

2The Application identified an address in the City of Brockville in Section 1 of the Application for the personal contact information for the applicant. The Application did not provide an e-mail address or telephone number.

3On November 15, 2011, the Tribunal received correspondence from the applicant, dated November 2, 2011, stating that as of November 20, 2011, he will be residing at an address in the Town of Marmora. The correspondence further stated that “There will be a post office box but I don’t have one yet. That is all of the new information as of 11.02.11”.

4On November 18, 2011, the Tribunal served the Application on both the applicant and the responding party. The correspondence for the applicant was sent to the address he provided in the Town of Marmora. This correspondence was returned to the Tribunal.

5On March 13, 2012, The Tribunal sent a package and correspondence to the applicant, including the respondent’s Response to Application, at the address in the Town of Marmora. Both the package and correspondence were returned to the Tribunal, noting on the package, Return to Sender – Address Incomplete. In addition, the words “Box #?” was handwritten on the address label for the package.

6On May 7, 2012, the Tribunal sent further correspondence to the applicant at his address in the Town of Marmora which summarized the steps taken to contact him and requesting that he provide the Tribunal the information necessary to complete his mailing address by May 18, 2012. The correspondence indicated that if the applicant does not comply with this direction, the Tribunal may deem the Application to be abandoned.

7As of the date of this decision, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence that has been sent to the address in the Town of Marmora.

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

9The Application is dismissed.