Sura Abdulaziz v. Subway Restaurants, 2012 HRTO 949

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sura Abdulaziz Applicant

-and-

Subway Restaurants Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: May 10, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 949 Indexed as: Abdulaziz v. Subway Restaurants

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on January 12, 2012.

2On January 26, 2012, the Tribunal attempted to deliver the Notice of Application to the respondent at the address provided by the applicant. The package was not delivered and returned by the postal service indicating that there was “no such post office”.

3On March 8, 2012, the Tribunal attempted to telephone the applicant in order to confirm the respondent’s contact information. The Tribunal telephoned the number provided by the applicant for contacting her. The Tribunal was informed by the person receiving the call that the applicant no longer resided at the address associated with that telephone number.

4As such, on March 8, 2012, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant care of the email address she provided with her Application and had indicated was her preferred method of contact. The Tribunal’s letter advised the applicant that the Tribunal was unable to proceed with the Application without further information as to the respondent’s contact address. The letter drew the applicant’s attention to Rule 6.6(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) which provides that the Tribunal will not deal with an application in respect of a respondent who cannot be contacted at the contact information provided by the applicant.

5The Tribunal’s letter directed the applicant that by March 28, 2012 she was required to provide to the Tribunal a current, complete and accurate address for the respondent and to explain what steps were taken to ensure the address is correct. The letter stated that if the applicant did not provide the requisite information by the March 28th deadline, the Tribunal may dismiss the Application

6As explained by the Tribunal in Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347, while the Tribunal forwards completed applications to respondents, it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide accurate contact information, and the Tribunal relies on applicants to provide a correct address for respondents named in their applications.

7As of the date of this Decision, the applicant has not corresponded or communicated with the Tribunal regarding the respondent’s contact information as required by the Tribunal’s letter.

8In addition, the applicant has not communicated or corresponded with the Tribunal in regards to her up to date contact information. Pursuant to Rule 1.13, all parties are required to notify the Tribunal and other parties of any change in contact information.

9The applicant has failed to provide the Tribunal with accurate contact information for the respondent as required by the Tribunal’s letter and has failed to communicate with the Tribunal regarding her own contact information.

10In accordance with Rule 5.4, the Tribunal may finally determine an Application without further notice to any person who cannot be contacted by the Tribunal according to the contact information provided to the Tribunal by that person.

11In the circumstances and further to Rules 1.13, 5.4 and 6.6(b), the Tribunal must dismiss this Application. The applicant has not contacted or corresponded with the Tribunal about her intentions, has not provided the Tribunal with her current contact information and has failed to satisfy her obligation to provide the proper contact information for the respondent.

12Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.