M.L. v. Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services, 2012 HRTO 1998

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

M.L. by her next fried B.C.

Applicant

-and-

Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services, Paul Forsyth and Rebecca Swartz

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Decision Date: October 22, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1998 Indexed as: M.L. v. Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services

Introduction

1The applicant’s mother filed this Application on behalf of her infant daughter under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on January 9, 2012.

2In light of a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice granting the respondent agency with Crown Wardship of the applicant child, on August 7, 2012, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 1535 to the parties directing the applicant’s mother “to write to the Tribunal, copied to the respondents, and indicate whether or not she intends to proceed with the Application and the basis upon which she claims to have status to proceed.” The Interim Decision warned that “If the applicant’s mother fails to confirm an intention to proceed and the basis upon which she claims to have status to proceed, the Tribunal will deem the Application to have been abandoned.”

3On August 24, 2012 the Applicant emailed the Tribunal in response to the above Interim Decision indicating her general interest in pursuing the matter, but failed to copy the respondents and failed to provide any indication of the basis upon which she claimed to have status to proceed. On August 29, 2012 the Registrar wrote to the Applicant warning that because the respondents had not been copied “the HRTO cannot accept and process your email until this is done.” The Registrar’s letter provided a blank Form 23 (Statement of Delivery) and warned that if the Applicant did not comply with the requirement to copy the Respondents and confirm that she had done so by filing a Statement of Delivery by September 6, 2012 the Application might be reviewed for abandonment.

4As of the date of this Decision the Applicant has not confirmed delivery of her email to the responding parties or otherwise contacted the Tribunal or complied with the directions of the Tribunal set out in the above Interim Decision.

5In light of the Tribunal’s Interim Decision in 2012 HRTO 1535, the Applicant’s failure to identify the basis upon which she claims to have status to proceed, and her failure to copy the respondents on her submissions as directed in 2012 HRTO 1535 and by Registrar’s letter dated August 29, 2012, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

6The Application is dismissed.