A.B. v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 1414

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

A.B.

Applicant

-and-

Ministry of Community and Social Services and Juliette’s Place

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: September 23, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1414 Indexed as: A.B. v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

1This Application was filed on July 2, 2014, and alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities, because of family status, association with a person identified by another ground and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application has not been sent to the respondents for Response.

2Given the information in the Application, and the fact that the respondent Juliette’s Place is a women’s shelter, for the purposes of this Decision, the Tribunal has decided on its own initiative to anonymize the name of the applicant.

3By letter dated July 3, 2014, the Tribunal issued a letter confirming receipt of the Application to the applicant. This letter was returned by Canada Post as “Return to Sender”.

4The Tribunal issued another letter to the applicant on August 15, 2014, which was sent by regular mail as well as email to the email address the applicant provided on her Application form and the one she used to file her Application. This letter was a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) which indicated that the Application appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because: it did not appear to raise an issue that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction or power to resolve; a review of the Application and the narrative failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code; and the allegations failed to explain how the respondents’ behaviour amounted to reprisal within the meaning of section 8 of the Code. The NOID directed the applicant to file written submissions responding to these issues by September 15, 2014, and warned that the failure to respond may result in her Application being dismissed as abandoned. Another copy of the July 3 correspondence was also included in both the correspondence sent by regular mail and email.

5The NOID issued by regular mail was returned by Canada Post as “Return to Sender” with the notation that the address appeared to be missing a unit number. The NOID issued by email was not returned to the Tribunal as being undeliverable.

6The applicant has not filed written submissions as directed by the Tribunal in the NOID. She has not otherwise communicated with the Tribunal. The correspondence the Tribunal issued to her by regular mail was sent to the address that she provided on her Application, which did not include a unit number. The NOID was sent to the applicant’s email, at the email address identified both on her Application and from which she used to file her Application.

7Accordingly, given the applicant’s failure to respond as directed by the Tribunal, her Application is dismissed as abandoned.