Mathurin v. McGuinty, 2013 HRTO 1455

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Marie Myrlande Mathurin

Applicant

-and-

Dalton McGuinty, John Gerresten and Chris Bentley

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: August 26, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1455

Indexed as: Mathurin v. McGuinty

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 April 18, 2013.

2By way of letter dated May 8, 2013, the Tribunal advised the applicant that her Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination under the Code allegedly committed by the respondents and she was directed to provide written submissions responding to this issue on or before June 7, 2013. The letter also warned that if the applicant failed to file the requested information by the required deadline the Tribunal might dismiss the Application as abandoned.

3The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s request in its letter and the letter, sent by mail to the applicant on May 8, was not returned as undeliverable.

4In her correspondence to the Tribunal dated May 13 and 16, 2013, respectively, the applicant requested that the Tribunal extend the time for filing her submissions referred to in the Tribunal’s letter of May 8.

5By way of letter dated May 23, 2013 to the applicant, the Tribunal granted the applicant’s request for an extension of time until June 28, 2013 to provide written submissions regarding the issue raised in its May 8 letter. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s request and the letter, sent by mail to the applicant on May 23, was not returned as undeliverable.

6The applicant sent another letter to the Tribunal dated June 20, 2013 requesting that the Tribunal extend the time for filing her written submissions beyond the due date of June 28, 2013.

7By way of letter dated July 23, 2013, the Tribunal granted a final extension of time to the applicant until August 6, 2013 to provide her written submissions regarding the issue raised in its May 8 letter. To date, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s request and the letter, sent by mail to the applicant on July 23, was not returned as undeliverable.

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

9The Application is dismissed.