Soad Savaed v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2012 HRTO 935

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Soad Savaed

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Community Housing Corporation and Cheryl Pryce

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: May 9, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 935

Indexed as: Savaed v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation

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 5, 2010.

2On November 15, 2011 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing to the parties confirming that the hearing of the Application would take place on April 12 and 13, 2012 at 655 Bay Street, 14^th^ Floor, Toronto, Ontario. The Notice was mailed to the applicant’s address provided in the Application and was not returned as undeliverable.

3The respondents requested an adjournment of the hearing on February 7, 2012. By email to the parties dated February 24, 2012, the Tribunal granted the adjournment request, and directed the respondents to canvass mutually agreeable dates with the applicant for rescheduling the hearing. The Tribunal requested that dates be provided to the Tribunal by March 9, 2012.

4By email dated February 24, 2012, and copied to the Tribunal, the respondents canvassed dates with the applicant. It appears that the applicant did not respond to the respondents’ email, nor did the applicant otherwise respond to the Tribunal’s February 24, 2012 email to the parties.

5On March 23, 2012 the Tribunal wrote a letter to the applicant noting that he had not responded to the Tribunal’s email of February 24, 2012. The letter also noted that the Tribunal had tried to reach the applicant by telephone but that the number on file was no longer in service. The Tribunal requested that the applicant update all contact information with the Tribunal. The Tribunal also directed the applicant to advise of his intentions with respect to the Application, and that if he wished to proceed with the Application, to respond to the Tribunal’s email of February 24, 2012. The Tribunal’s letter warned the applicant that a failure to respond to the letter by April 2, 2012 may be deemed an abandonment of the Application.

6The Tribunal’s March 23, 2012 letter was sent to the applicant by regular mail and has not been returned to the Tribunal. A copy of the letter was also sent to the applicant by email at two email addresses on file for the applicant. One of the emails was returned as undeliverable.

7As of the date of this Decision the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s correspondence.

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