Darby Dunn v. The Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie and John Luszka, 2013 HRTO 1907

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Darby Dunn

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie and John Luszka

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: November 19, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1907 Indexed as: Dunn v. Sault Ste. Marie (City)

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging a breach of settlement. In his Application the applicant makes a small number of general allegations. The only remedy sought was the lifting of a “trespass notice” allegedly imposed on him by the respondents.

2The respondents responded to the Application. Shortly after filing their Response the respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (“Request”) seeking to amend their Response by the addition of an assertion that the applicant and the respondents met on September 3, 2013 to discuss the trespass notice. The respondent City advised that the issue had been resolved to the applicant’s apparent satisfaction. The applicant did not respond to the Request.

3In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) issued by the Tribunal on October 30, 2013 I observed that in light of the respondent’s Request it was not clear what the nature of the dispute was given that the only remedy sought by the applicant had in effect been granted by the respondents and that it might be as asserted by the respondents that the Application was moot. I also observed that it was not clear from the Application what the basis for the claim of breach of settlement was in any event.

4In order to ensure the orderly adjudication of this Application the Tribunal made the following Directions:

a. The applicant is directed to confirm that in light of the resolution of this dispute with respect to the Trespass Notice whether he intends to proceed further with this Application;

b. If the answer to (a) above is that the applicant intends to proceed further with this Application, the applicant is directed to deliver and further particulars of any alleged breaches of the MOS within 14 days of the date of this Direction failing which the Application may be dismissed as abandoned. At the same time the applicant is directed to deliver and file the remedy he is seeking in the event that a breach of the MOS is found.

5The applicant did not respond to these Directions and the time for doing so has passed. Moreover the applicant did not communicate with the Tribunal in any way subsequent to the issuing of the CAD above. In all of the circumstances it appears that the applicant has abandoned the Application and it is dismissed accordingly.