Blackmore v. Moss, 2014 HRTO 217

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Jennifer Blackmore Applicant

-and-

Craig Moss Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: February 14, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 217 Indexed as: Blackmore v. Moss

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 19, 2010.

2In Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 461, issued March 4, 2011, the Tribunal deferred proceeding with this Application pending the conclusion of ongoing proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and the Ontario Ministry of Labour pursuant to the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41.

3On April 25, 2012 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant’s representative at the address provided for the applicant’s representative in the Application. The applicant was asked to inform the Registrar in writing within 30 days of the date of the letter whether the other proceedings remained ongoing and, if possible, to indicate when they were expected to be completed. The letter went on to warn the applicant that failure to provide the requested information as directed might result in the Tribunal dismissing the Application as abandoned. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s correspondence.

4On September 30, 2013, the Tribunal also wrote to the applicant’s representative by email, at the email address provided for the applicant’s representative in the Application, and attached its April 25, 2012 correspondence. In its email correspondence, the Tribunal indicated that the applicant was required to advise the Tribunal whether the other proceedings were still ongoing and, if possible, when they were expected to be completed, within five days of the date of the correspondence. The Tribunal warned the applicant that a failure to respond as directed may result in the Tribunal dismissing the Application as abandoned.

5To date, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s April 25, 2012 and September 30, 2013 correspondence, and the Tribunal’s correspondence has not been returned as undeliverable.

6In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application and the Application is dismissed.