Chowdhury v. Amaz Property Management, 2016 HRTO 89

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sharif Chowdhury Applicant

-and-

Amaz Property Management Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: January 20, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 89 Indexed as: Chowdhury v. Amaz Property Management

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 25, 2015. On October 23, 2015, the respondent filed a Response, which was delivered to the applicant on November 20, 2015. The applicant was advised that he could file a Reply on or before December 4, 2015. The applicant did not file a Reply.

2On December 21, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing the applicant to provide a Reply to the respondent’s Response no later than 14 days from the date of the CAD. He was warned that if he failed to file the Reply by the required deadline, the Tribunal might consider the failure to do so as an abandonment of the Application and dismiss the Application for that reason.

3The applicant has not responded to the CAD and the time for doing so has now passed. In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

4The Application is dismissed.