HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Rahim Hadani
Applicant
-and-
Kingwest Fitness
Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
Rahim Hadani
Applicant
-and-
Kingwest Fitness, Kevin Knott, Julia Kufel and Kennedy Lodato
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Alexander Purchase
Applicant
-and-
Kingwest Fitness, Kevin Knott, Julia Kufel and Kennedy Lodato
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith
Indexed as: Hadani v. Kingwest Fitness
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Rahim Hadani, Applicant
Self -Represented
BACKGROUND
1By way of an Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 680, the Tribunal consolidated the present Applications and deferred the Applications pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings. In that Interim Decision, the Tribunal expressly drew the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) which sets out the process a party needs to undertake if requesting to proceed with a deferred application upon the conclusion of the other legal proceeding.
2On December 16, 2011, the applicant Hadani wrote to the Tribunal and advised that both applicants had, “worked out their differences with Kevin Knott and Kingwest Fitness” and requested that the Tribunal close the file.
3On December 16, 2011, the Tribunal replied to applicant Hadani and directed him to file a Form 25 if the matters were settled or a Form 9 if he sought to withdraw the Applications. On the same day, applicant Hadani replied to the Tribunal and advised that he would do so. However, no further correspondence or communications were received.
4On March 1, 2012, the Tribunal wrote to the parties and directed the applicants to clarify the status of the criminal proceedings. The letter again reminded the applicants that to reactivate a deferred application upon completion of the other proceeding, an applicant must comply with the procedures under Rules 14.3 and 14.4.
5On March 1, 2012, applicant Hadani replied to the Tribunal and advised that criminal proceedings had ended. On the same day, the Tribunal wrote to applicant Hadani and reiterated that if the applicant was seeking to reactivate his Applications he was required to follow the steps under Rules 14.3 and 14.4.
6Again on the same day, applicant Hadani replied to the Tribunal and advised that he was in law school in the United Kingdom until June 15, 2012 and would complete the items upon his return.
7Notwithstanding applicant Hadani’s earlier indication that the applicants were seeking that the files be closed, the applicants did not filed the appropriate Forms (e.g., Form 9 or Form 25) to do so. Nor was a Request for Reactivation received from either applicant.
8The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision (2012 HRTO 1190) on June 18, 2012, reminding the applicants that all parties are required to respect the Tribunal’s process and comply with the Tribunal’s Rules. The Tribunal further noted that the applicant Hadani had not provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to adhere to the Tribunal’s Rules.
9The Interim Decision ordered that, within seven days of the date of the Interim Decision, both applicants were required to write to the Tribunal, copied to the respondents, advising if they sought to withdraw the Applications, or if they sought to reactivate the Applications. The Interim Decision also advised that if the applicants failed to comply with the orders in the Interim Decision the Applications would be dismissed as abandoned.
10On June 18, 2012, the applicant Hadani emailed the following message to the Tribunal: “withdraw the application”. There was no indication that the message was in any way copied to the respondents. The Tribunal has received nothing further from the applicant Hadani and the time for them to make submissions has now passed.
11The Tribunal has received nothing from the applicant Purchase in response to the letter of March 1, 2012, or the two Interim Decisions. All correspondence to the applicant Purchase was sent by the Tribunal by regular mail to the postal address provided in his application as well as to the email address provided in his application. No correspondence was returned to the Tribunal. The time for making submissions has now passed.
12Given these circumstances and the applicants’ failure to comply with the June 18, 2012, Interim Decision they are deemed to have abandoned their Applications.
ORDER
The Applications are dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of July, 2012.
”signed by”
Alan G. Smith
Member