Hurd v. Mann Lawyers LLP, 2016 HRTO 675

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

James Hurd

Applicant

-and-

Mann Lawyers LLP, Heather Austin-Skaret and Jonathan Wright

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana
Date: May 18, 2016
Citation: 2016 HRTO 675
Indexed as: Hurd v. Mann Lawyers LLP

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 February 3, 2015.

2On February 10, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Mediation to the parties’ representatives confirming that a mediation of the Application would take place on April 4, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. at Gillespie Reporting Services, 130 Slater Street, in Ottawa. The Notice was resent to the applicant on February 24, 2016, after his former legal representative wrote to the Tribunal confirming that he had previously withdrawn representation and does not represent the applicant. The Notice was sent to the applicant by email and by regular mail to the address provided in the Application. The Notice sent by regular mail was returned as undeliverable.

3On February 29, 2016, the applicant responded to the Tribunal’s February 24, 2016 email, not copied to the respondent, advising that the mailing address on file was not valid and that he wished his new address to remain confidential.

4The Tribunal responded on March 2, 2016, advising the applicant that he must provide a valid mailing address to all parties and could provide an alternate mailing address. Another copy of the notice of mediation was attached for the applicant’s reference.

5The applicant did not attend the scheduled mediation session on April 4, 2016, and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend.

6On April 26, 2016, the Tribunal wrote the applicant directing that the applicant advise it of his intentions with respect to the Application. The letter warned the applicant that a failure to respond to the letter in writing by May 6, 2016 might be deemed an abandonment of the Application. The letter was sent by regular mail and by email, which is the applicant’s preferred form of delivery. The Tribunal also directed the applicant to provide a valid mailing address to all parties or an alternate contact mailing address.

7As of the date of this Decision, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal and the Tribunal’s correspondence to the applicant has not been returned.

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