Mayers v. Liberty Entertainment Group, 2015 HRTO 550

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Steven Mayers

Applicant

-and-

Liberty Entertainment Group o/a 1273251 Ontario Ltd., Spice Route Asian Bistro and Bar o/a 1733346 Ontario Inc. and Ink Entertainment o/a 1672353 Ontario Inc.

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: April 30, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 550

Indexed as: Mayers v. Liberty Entertainment Group

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 February 10, 2012.

2By Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 1375, dated July 12, 2012, the Tribunal determined that it was appropriate to defer consideration of the Application, pending the conclusion of a small claims court proceeding. The Tribunal’s Interim Decision also directed the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which outline the procedure by which a deferred application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the other proceeding.

3In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated October 14, 2014, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had requested that the Application be re-activated on the basis that he sent a letter to the Court asking that his claim be dismissed, but he provided no information that the claim had, in fact, concluded. The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide information confirming the conclusion of the other proceeding. In further correspondence dated October 28, 2014, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide information confirming the conclusion of the other proceeding by November 10, 2014. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s CAD or October 28, 2014 correspondence, which were sent to the applicant by both regular mail and email, at addresses the applicant provided in the Application, and were not returned as undeliverable.

4On January 7, 2015, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant. The applicant was directed to inform the Tribunal in writing, within 15 days of the date of the letter, whether the small claims court proceeding was still ongoing and, if possible, when it was expected to be completed. The Tribunal indicated that if the applicant failed to do so, the Tribunal may dismiss the Application as abandoned.

5As of the date of this Decision, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s January 7, 2015 letter. While a copy of the letter sent to the applicant by email was returned as undeliverable, the letter sent by regular mail was not. In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application and the Application is dismissed.