Atkinson v. Chetan Investment Group Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1689

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Zakk Atkinson Applicant

-and-

Chetan Investment Group Ltd. Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: October 8, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1689 Indexed as: Atkinson v. Chetan Investment Ltd.

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of age and receipt of public assistance.

2By Notice of Confirmation of Hearing (“Notice of Hearing”) dated March 15, 2013, the matter was set down for hearing on October 11, 2013. The Notice of Hearing directed the parties to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In particular, the Notice of Hearing directed the parties to deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal a list of arguably relevant documents by April 5, 2013. It also directed the parties to exchange with one another and file with the Tribunal the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing, a list of their witnesses and a summary of their witnesses’ anticipated evidence (the “Pre-Hearing Materials”) by no later than August 27, 2013.

3The respondent dlivered its list of documents and will say statement to the applicant on April 3, 2013. The applicant did not deliver his list of documents to the respondent.

4In a September 23, 2013 Case Assessment Direction (the “CAD”), the Tribunal directed the parties to provide their Pre-Hearing Materials immediately, and in any event, within seven (7) days of the date of the CAD (September 30, 2013). The applicant was advised if he intended to confine his evidence to the information set out in the Application, he need not file a witness statement, but had to advise the Tribunal of that fact within seven days of the CAD. The Tribunal advised the applicant that he was still required to file his hearing documents within seven days of the CAD. The CAD was sent to the applicant electronically and by regular mail. The Tribunal advised the applicant that if he failed to comply with this direction, the Application could be dismissed as abandoned.

5On September 30, 2013, the respondent advised the Tribunal that it intended to rely on the documentation attached to the Response.

6The applicant did not respond to the directions set out in the CAD.

7The applicant has not complied with any of his pre-hearing obligations nor has he complied with the direction set out in the CAD. In the circumstances, it appears that the applicant does not intend to proceed with the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

ORDER

8The Application is dismissed as abandoned and the hearing date of October 11, 2013 is cancelled.