Ross v. Maple Lodge Farms, 2012 HRTO 2006

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stephen Ross

Applicant

-and-

Maple Lodge Farms and Niagara Grain & Feed (1984) Limited

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Decision Date: October 23, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2006

Indexed as: Ross v. Maple Lodge Farms

Introduction

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 September 26, 2011.

2A Response to the Application was delivered to the applicant on April 11, 2012, by regular mail to the contact address provided by the applicant. In his application, the applicant requested use of an alternate address for delivery, rather than the Applicant’s personal address. In the notice accompanying the Response, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply, along with a completed Statement of Delivery (Form 23), not later than April 25, 2012.

3On April 25, 2012, the applicant sent a fax to the Tribunal requesting a 30-day extension of time to file his Reply. While the applicant confirmed receipt of the package (containing the Response and accompanying Tribunal notice), his facsimile message appeared to suggest that there had been some difficulties in receiving the package because of changes in personnel at the address location he had provided. The applicant did not indicate a new address for delivery or authorize use of his personal address for delivery.

4On May 8, 2012, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and granted his request for an extension of time to file his Reply until May 22, 2012. This letter was sent in duplicate to both his alternate address (copied to the respondent) and his personal address (not copied to the respondent). The letter included the following direction:

Please note that the HRTO’s letter of April 11, 2012 was sent to you c/o Lori Wagner at 80 Stanley Street as this is the contact information for your alternative contact provided in question two of your Application. As indicated in the Application, when a party provides contact information for an alternate contact, the HRTO and the respondents will contact you through that person. If your alternative contact information has changed, or if you wish for the HRTO and respondents to contact you directly at your mailing address, then you must update your contact information. As such, please confirm your contact information in writing with the HRTO and all parties by May 22, 2012.

5No response or communication was received by the Tribunal from the applicant and on September 5, 2012 the Tribunal wrote again to the applicant, confirming the contents of its letter of May 8, 2012 and also indicating:

As you have provided alternative contact information in your Application, the HRTO cannot disclose your personal contact information to the respondents. As such, a copy of this letter is being sent to you via your alternative contact, and also to your personal mailing address under separate cover.

You must confirm your contact information in writing with the HRTO and the respondents’ representative by September 19, 2012. If you do not provide the information as requested by this date, your Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

6To date, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s correspondence.

7In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

8The Application is dismissed.