Stephen Wooff v. Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre, 2014 HRTO 723

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stephen Wooff

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre; Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services; Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario; the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and Michael Klar

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: May 21, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 723

Indexed as: Wooff v. Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On February 3, 2014 the Tribunal delivered a Notice of Application to the applicant at the address provided by him. On February 21, 2014 the Notice of Application was returned to the Tribunal marked as “return to sender”.

3On March 10, 2014 the Tribunal again attempted to deliver a letter to the applicant by regular mail at the address provided by the applicant in his Application. On March 24, 2014 this correspondence was returned to the Tribunal marked as “return to sender”. In an Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 270 this Application was deferred.

4In correspondence to the Tribunal dated February 5, 2014, the respondent Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services advised the Tribunal that was no longer in Ministry custody at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre, which is the address provided for the applicant in the Application.

5On April 22, 2014 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant at the address provided by the applicant drawing his attention to Rule 5.4 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure, which states:

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.

6The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal and all other parties of his updated contact information and whether you intend to proceed with the Application. The applicant was further advised that if he did not respond to this direction by May 2, 2014 the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

7The applicant did not respond to this direction and has not contacted the Tribunal.

8In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

9The Application is dismissed.