Murrin v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Archdiocese of Toronto, 2013 HRTO 1464

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stephen Murrin

Applicant

-and-

Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Archdiocese of Toronto

and Robert O’Brien

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: August 28, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1464

Indexed as: Murrin v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Archdiocese of Toronto

Introduction

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 July 3, 2012.

2On March 31, 2013, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) sent a Notice of Hearing to the parties by regular mail. The Notice mailed to the applicant was returned to the HRTO.

3On March 25, 2013 the respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings and delivered a copy to the applicant by regular mail. By letter dated May 31, 2013 the respondents’ representative advised the HRTO that the package sent to the applicant had been returned.

4By email dated June 7, 2013 the HRTO advised the applicant to provide the Tribunal and the respondents with his updated contact information by June 21, 2013. Attached to the email was a copy of the Notice of Hearing and the respondent’s Request for Order. The applicant responded on June 21, 2013. In the email he requested an extension to prepare his documents for the hearing and provided his updated contact information. However, he did not copy the respondents on this email.

5By emails dated June 24, 2013 and July 12, 2013 the HRTO reminded the applicant of his obligation to provide a copy of his correspondence to the respondents and he was informed that his request for an extension would not be processed until his email was forwarded to all parties. The applicant did not respond to these emails.

6By letter dated July 23, 2013, sent to the applicant by email, the HRTO directed the applicant to advise all the parties of his updated contact information and to provide his response to the Request for Order. The applicant was informed that if he did not respond to the letter by August 2, 2013 the HRTO may deem the Application to be abandoned and dismiss it on that basis.

7To date, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s July 23, 2013 letter.

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

9The Application is dismissed.