Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Jing Hu
Applicant
-and-
Dhruv Patel
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard Date: August 4, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1005 Indexed as: Hu v. Patel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to housing because of place of origin and citizenship contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").
2The respondent failed to file a Response. On January 12, 2017, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2017 HRTO 38 in which it stated at para. 7:
In all but the rarest of cases, the Tribunal will deem the respondent to have waived its right to participate in the proceeding and deem the respondent to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application. I am satisfied that the respondent received the Notice of Application and the further direction requiring the filing of a Response. The respondent refused or chose not to participate in these proceedings.
3For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal made the following order:
a. The respondent is deemed to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application;
b. The respondent is deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation in these proceedings;
c. The respondent is not entitled to further notice with respect to the Application.
4On April 5, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Case Management Hearing ("Notice") confirming a call for June 20, 2017 from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
5The Notice was sent to the applicant by mail and email at the last address and email address identified in the Application. The Notice was not returned as undeliverable.
6The applicant failed to participate in the scheduled Case Management Hearing and did not advise the Tribunal prior to the scheduled date or at any time after the Hearing that she could not attend.
7On June 29, 2017 the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") to the applicant directing her to advise in writing within 14 days of the date of the CAD whether she intends to proceed with this Application. The applicant was warned that the Tribunal may dismiss the Application as abandoned if the applicant fails to comply with the CAD.
8The CAD was delivered to the applicant by mail and courier and was not returned as undeliverable.
9The applicant has not responded to the CAD and the time for doing so has now passed.
10In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.
11The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 4^th^ day of August, 2017.
"Signed By"
Josée Bouchard
Vice-chair