Mathurin v. Naylor, 2013 HRTO 1456

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marie Myrlande Mathurin

Applicant

-and-

Dr. David Naylor

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: August 26, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1456

Indexed as: Mathurin v. Naylor

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 February 11, 2013.

2By way of letter dated April 30, 2013, the Tribunal advised the applicant that her Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination under the Code allegedly committed by the respondent and she was directed to provide written submissions responding to this issue on or before May 30, 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 provide written submissions in response to the Tribunal’s request in its letter and the letter, sent by mail to the applicant on April 30, was not returned as undeliverable.

4Following receipt of the Tribunal’s letter of April 30, the applicant left a voice mail message with the Tribunal to request that it extend the time for filing her written submissions referred to in the Tribunal’s letter of April 30. The applicant also sent a letter to the Tribunal on May 3, 2013 requesting an extension of time for filing her submissions.

5On May 14, 2013, the Tribunal sent an email to the applicant requesting that she provide the approximate length of time for her requested extension to file her submissions.

6On May 16, 2013, the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal to advise that she “most probably” required an extension of time until the end of July 2013.

7In its letter dated May 23, 2013 to the applicant, the Tribunal granted the applicant’s request for an extension of time until June 20, 2013 to provide written submissions regarding the issue raised in its letter of April 30. The applicant did not provide written submissions and the letter, sent by mail to the applicant on May 23, was not returned as undeliverable.

8On June 20, 2013, the applicant sent another letter to the Tribunal to advise that she could not meet the deadline of June 20 and requested a further extension of time to file her written submissions.

9By 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 April 30 letter. To date, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s request and the letter, sent by ordinary mail and email to the applicant on July 23, was not returned as undeliverable.

10In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

11The Application is dismissed.