<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
**B E T W E E N:**
M.R. by her Litigation Guardian R.C.
Applicant
-and-
Xiaorui Sun
Respondent
---
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
DECISION
**Adjudicator:** Brian Eyolfson
**Date:** September 23, 2014
**Citation:** 2014 HRTO 1412
**Indexed as:** M.R. v. Sun
---
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
[1] This Application was filed under [s. 34](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html) of the [Human Rights Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html), R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on October 31, 2012.
[2] By Interim Decision dated April 4, 2013, this Application was deferred, pending conclusion of a matter before the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”).
[3] On December 4, 2013, a copy of a decision of the LTB was provided to the Tribunal by the respondent. On January 15, 2014, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant’s litigation guardian, by email at the address provided in the Application, and advised that if the applicant intended to seek reactivation of the Application, the applicant was required to file a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP” or Form 10). The Tribunal also asked the applicant to confirm her contact information. The applicant was referred to Rule 1.13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which states that a party and a party’s representative must notify the Tribunal, and all parties and their representatives, in writing, of any change in their contact information, as soon as possible.
[4] On April 4, 2014, the Tribunal again wrote to the applicant by email, and indicated that no request to reactivate had been received. The applicant was advised that if she wished to withdraw her Application, she must complete and submit a Request to Withdraw (Form 9).
[5] On April 4, 2014, the applicant responded to the Tribunal by email, and advised that she did not wish to withdraw her Application. The Tribunal forwarded a Form 10 to the applicant on the same date.
[6] On July 9, 2014, the respondent field an RFOP seeking dismissal of the Application on the basis of the LTB decision, the failure of the applicant to deliver and file a request to reactivate, and the applicant’s apparent abandonment of the Application.
[7] On July 31, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), indicating that it appeared that the applicant may have abandoned the Application. The applicant was directed to indicate her intentions and file a request to reactivate the Application (Form 10), together with submissions explaining the failure to do so in compliance with Rule 14 which requires that such requests be made within 60 days of the conclusion of the other proceeding. The Tribunal indicated that if the applicant failed to respond to the CAD within 7 days, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.
[8] To date, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s July 31, 2014 CAD, nor does it appear that she has otherwise communicated with the Tribunal since April 4, 2014. The Tribunal’s CAD was delivered to the applicant at the email and mailing addresses the applicant provided. While the CAD delivered by regular mail was returned as undeliverable, the Tribunal’s correspondence sent to the applicant by email has not been returned as undeliverable.
[9] In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.
[10] The Application is dismissed.
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of September, 2014.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
Brian Eyolfson
Vice-chair
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel