Krystal Dayton v. A Natural Advantage / Skin Vitality, 2015 HRTO 1545

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Krystal Dayton

Applicant

-and-

A Natural Advantage / Skin Vitality

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: November 16, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1545

Indexed as: Dayton v. A Natural Advantage/Skin Vitality

Introduction

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 August 18, 2015.

2On October 7, 2015 the Tribunal sent the applicant a Registrar's letter asking for submissions pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code. The applicant was directed to respond to the issues raised in the letter by no later than October 21, 2015. The applicant did not respond to that letter and an email was sent, with the original letter as an attachment on October 27, 2015, directing the applicant to respond by November 5, 2015. The letter advised the applicant that failure to respond to the letter may be considered an abandonment of the Application and it might be dismissed for that reason.

3The applicant has not responded to the letter and the follow-up email and the time for doing so has now passed.

4In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

5The Application is dismissed.