Silva v. Queensway Volkswagen Inc., 2013 HRTO 1571

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ajith Silva

Applicant

-and-

Queensway Volkswagen Inc., Ray Tolentino and Michael Chang

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: September 19, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1571

Indexed as: Silva v. Queensway Volkswagen Inc.

1The applicant filed this Application on November 21, 2012, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (the “Code”), and the respondents filed a Response on February 7, 2013.

2On July 2, 2013, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the Tribunal not proceed with the Application any further because a civil action had been commenced.

3On July 24, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) indicating that it required the parties’ submissions with respect to various preliminary issues. In particular, the Tribunal noted that it cannot consider the applicant’s request to defer without further submissions from the parties because it appeared, pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code, the Application may be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Section 34(11) bars an application from proceeding where an applicant commenced a civil suit based on the same facts and allegations and seeking similar remedies.

4The CAD directed the applicant to provide written submissions with respect to the issues of deferral and section 34(11) within 21 days of the date of the CAD. The CAD warned that if the applicant failed to file written submissions by the required deadline the Tribunal might consider the failure to respond as an abandonment of the Application and dismiss the Application for that reason.

5The applicant has not responded to the CAD and the time for doing so has now passed.

6In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

7Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.