Perry Armstrong v. Hydro One Forestry Services, 2012 HRTO 2082

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Perry Armstrong

Applicant

-and-

Hydro One Forestry Services, Ardis MacDonald, Don Chavette, Randy Beamish, Harry Stockill and John Ives

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: October 31, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2082

Indexed as: Armstrong v. Hydro One Forestry Services

1The Tribunal issued a Notice of Request to Defer and Dismiss dated September 26, 2012, advising the applicant as follows:

The respondents Hydro One Forestry Services, Ardis MacDonald, Don Chavette, Randy Beamish and Harry Stockill have asked the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) to:

• Dismiss the Application on the basis the subject-matter of Application is the same or substantially the same as the subject-matter of a complaint that was previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. [s.53(8)].

• Dismiss the Application on the basis the applicant has signed a full and final release with respect to the same issues in dispute.

And:

The respondents Hydro One Forestry Services, Ardis MacDonald, Don Chavette, Randy Beamish, Harry Stockill and John Ives have asked the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) to:

• Dismiss the Application on the basis that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of this Application. [s.45.1 of the Human Rights Code].

• Defer considering the Application on the basis that there is an ongoing proceeding before another decision-maker which raises some or all of the facts and issues raised in this Application. [s.45 of the Human Rights Code and Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure]

• Dismiss the Application as against individual Respondents, Ardis McDonald, Don Charette, Randy Beamish and Harry Stockill, on the basis that the Application fails to disclose any particulars or events involving the individual Respondents.

• Dismiss the Application as against individual Respondent John Ives on the basis that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to deal with the matters raised in the Application.

2The Notice directed the applicant to make submissions in relation to the Requests by October 10, 2012. The Notice also indicated that if the applicant did not file written submissions by the required time, the HRTO may consider the failure to respond as abandonment and dismiss the Application for that reason.

3The applicant did not file submissions in relation to any of the Requests nor did he file a Reply disputing the facts advanced in the Response. As a result, I conclude that the applicant has abandoned the Application.

4Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.