Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Sarbjit Kaur Applicant
-and-
Barry J. Stafford Enterprises Inc. Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: March 28, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 442 Indexed as: Kaur v. Barry J. Stafford Enterprises Inc.
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on January 2, 2013. This matter is currently scheduled to be heard by the Tribunal on April 10 and 11, 2014.
2On January 31, 2014, the Tribunal received correspondence from the applicant’s representative, attaching a Request to Withdraw, and indicating that there “has been no response from the applicant after several months of trying.”
3On February 19, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) indicating that it was not clear if the applicant’s representative was seeking to withdraw the Application on behalf of the applicant, or if he was seeking to withdraw his representation of the applicant in this matter. The applicant’s representative was directed to confirm whether he was seeking to withdraw the Application on behalf of the applicant, or to cease representing the applicant in this matter. The applicant’s representative was also directed to provide the Tribunal with up-to-date contact information for the applicant.
4A copy of the CAD was also sent to the applicant by mail and courier, at the address provided for the applicant in the Application. The CAD also directed that if the applicant wished to proceed with the Application, she was to confirm her intention of doing so, in writing to the Tribunal and the respondent, within 14 days of the date of the CAD. The CAD advised the applicant that if the Tribunal did not hear from the applicant within 14 days of the date of the CAD, the Application may be closed as withdrawn and/or dismissed as abandoned.
5On February 22, 2014, the applicant’s representative advised the Tribunal that he was ceasing to represent the applicant in this matter, and that the latest address that he had for the applicant is the same address that is provided for the applicant in the Application.
6To date, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s CAD, and the time for doing so has passed. The Tribunal’s CAD was sent to the applicant by both regular mail and courier at the address provided for the applicant in the Application and has not been returned as undeliverable.
7In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.
8The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of March, 2014.
“Signed by”
_______________________________
Brian Eyolfson Vice-chair