Kalloosingh v. Extreme Fitness Inc., 2013 HRTO 1188

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

James Kalloosingh

Applicant

-and-

Extreme Fitness Inc., Sam Elahamar, Nathan Mason and David Don

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: July 8, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1188

Indexed as: Kalloosingh v. Extreme Fitness Inc.

1This Application was filed on December 27, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, creed, sexual orientation and reprisal.

2The Application was originally filed as against the corporate respondent and five individual respondents. The corporate respondent, Extreme Fitness Inc. and individual respondents Sam Elahamar, Nathan Mason and David Don, filed a collective Response.

3By way of Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated May 21, 2013, the Tribunal noted that there appeared to be an issue of whether or not the two remaining individual respondents received notice of the Application and their lack of Responses, as well as potential issue of jurisdiction.

4The CAD directed the applicant to file, within 21 days, written submissions and any supporting case law with respect to the issue of whether or not the allegations as against two individual respondents are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The applicant was also required to confirm the current and accurate contact information for the individual respondents and explain what steps he took to verify that the addresses are complete.

5The CAD expressly stated that if the applicant did not provide written submissions by the required time, the Tribunal may dismiss the Application as abandoned as against the two remaining individual respondents.

6The applicant did not file submissions and the time for doing so has elapsed.

7Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that the Tribunal may add or remove a party.

8In these circumstances, the Tribunal determines that the Application as against individual respondents Zaborac and Rzazweski is dismissed for abandonment.

9The respondents Zaborac and Rzazweski are removed from the Application and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

10I am not seized.