Zachary Hutchinson v. Tim Hortons and Dana Roberts, 2015 HRTO 1625

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zachary Hutchinson

Applicant

-and-

Tim Hortons and Dana Roberts

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: December 1, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1625

Indexed as: Hutchinson v. Tim Hortons

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 10, 2015.

2On August 31, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”), to both the applicant and his representative, on the basis that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The applicant was directed to respond to the issues raised in the NOID by no later than September 30, 2015. The NOID advised the applicant that a failure to respond to the NOID by the required time may be considered an abandonment of the Application and the Application might be dismissed for that reason. The applicant did not provide a response to the NOID.

3On October 13, 2015, the Tribunal re-issued the NOID to both the applicant and his representative by email. The applicant was directed to respond to the issues raised in the NOID by no later than October 27, 2015. The NOID again advised the applicant that a failure to respond to the NOID by the required time may be considered an abandonment of the Application and the Application might be dismissed for that reason.

4To date, the applicant has not responded to the NOID, and the time for doing so has passed. The NOID was delivered to both the applicant and his representative by regular mail and email at the addresses provided in the Application and it has not been returned as undeliverable.

5In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

6The Application is dismissed.