Gothard v. Gallagher, 2015 HRTO 277

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mike Gothard

Applicant

-and-

Kevin Gallagher

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: March 9, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 277 Indexed as: Gothard v. Gallagher

1This Application was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on November 20, 2008.

2By Interim Decision dated March 5, 2009, 2009 HRTO 252, the Application was deferred pending completion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

3By Decision dated May 25, 2011, 2011 HRTO 999, the Application was dismissed as abandoned. The applicant sought reconsideration of that Decision, which was granted by Reconsideration Decision dated September 28, 2011, 2011 HRTO 1776. The Application continued to be deferred pending conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

4On March 8, 2013, and again on July 22, 2014, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, regarding the status of the grievance proceeding. The Tribunal indicated that the applicant was required to advise the Tribunal whether the grievance process was still ongoing and, if possible, when it was expected to be completed, within 30 day of the date of the letters. The Tribunal indicated that if the applicant failed to do so, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

5The letter sent to the applicant on July 22, 2014, by regular mail was also delivered to the applicant by email on October 20, 2014. The Tribunal’s email to the applicant directed the applicant to respond to the Tribunal’s correspondence by November 4, 2014. The Tribunal again indicated that if the applicant failed to do so, the Tribunal may dismiss the Application as abandoned.

6In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated November 26, 2014, the Tribunal indicated that the applicant may have abandoned the Application, as it appeared that the applicant had not responded to the Tribunal’s 2013 and 2014 correspondence to him, and the correspondence had not been returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable. The applicant was provided with an additional 14 days from the date of the CAD to respond to the Tribunal’s correspondence. The Tribunal’s CAD indicated that if the applicant did not respond within 14 days, the Application would be considered to be abandoned.

7As of the date of this Decision, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s November 26, 2014 CAD, and it appears that he has not otherwise communicated with the Tribunal since 2011. The Tribunal’s CAD was delivered to the applicant by regular mail, courier and email at addresses the applicant provided to the Tribunal, and has not been returned as undeliverable.

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

9The Application is dismissed.