Armogan Gopaul v. Mytox Manufacturing, 2013 HRTO 571

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Armogan Gopaul Applicant

-and-

Mytox Manufacturing, a division of Magna Exteriors and Interiors Corp. Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: April 8, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 571 Indexed as: Gopaul v. Mytox Manufacturing

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 April 18, 2011.

2In Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 2060, issued November 14, 2011, the Tribunal deferred proceeding with this Application pending the conclusion of another legal proceeding raising some of the same issues.

3On January 31, 2013 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant at the address provided in the Application. The applicant was asked to inform the Registrar in writing within 30 days of the date of the letter of the status of the other proceeding. The letter went on to warn the applicant that failure to provide the requested information might result in the Tribunal dismissing the Application as abandoned.

4The Tribunal’s January 31, 2013 letter to the applicant was returned as undeliverable.

5On March 12, 2013 the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing the applicant to advise the Tribunal of his intentions with respect to this Application and to advise of the status of the other proceeding no later than 14 days from the date of the CAD. The CAD also 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.

6The Tribunal’s March 12, 2013 CAD was sent to the applicant by both regular mail and courier at the address provided in the Application, and both the regular mail and the courier package were returned as undeliverable.

7The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant by telephone and left a message for him at the telephone number provided in the Application; however, the applicant has not responded to the message. In addition, the cell phone number that the applicant provided in his Application appears to be the wrong number. The applicant did not provide an email address.

8Pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may finally determine an Application without further notice to any person who cannot be contacted by the Tribunal according to the contact information provided to the Tribunal by that person.

9In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

10The Application is dismissed.