Webber v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2017 HRTO 1343

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kenneth Webber

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and Lori Hill

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Decision Date: October 12, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1343

Indexed as: Webber v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on April 24, 2017.

2On May 29, 2017, the respondents’ counsel filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) by email to remove the individual respondent Lori Hill and copied the applicant on the email. The applicant did not file a Response to the RFOP.

3On June 7, 2017, the respondents’ counsel filed a Request for a Summary Hearing (“Form 26”) by mail. Their Statement of Delivery stated that a copy of the Form 26 was sent to the applicant by regular mail. The applicant did not respond to the Form 26.

4On June 12, 2017, the Tribunal delivered to the applicant the respondents’ Response by mail and email at the addresses he provided on his Application form. The Tribunal received a message by email stating, “the email account that you tried to reach does not exist”. The copy the Tribunal sent by mail was not returned as undeliverable. The applicant did not file a Reply to the Response.

5On September 8, 2017, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant by regular mail and courier, directing him to provide an up-to-date email address and mailing address if it had changed. It also directed the applicant to file responses to the RFOP and Form 26 filed by the respondents. In addition, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply to the respondents’ Response. The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide this information by September 22, 2017, failing which his Application might be dismissed as abandoned. The copy of the Tribunal’s September 8^, 2017 letter sent by regular mail was not returned as undeliverable. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s September 8, 2017 letter or any of the Tribunal’s other attempts to contact him.

6Under Rule 1.13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, parties have the obligation to notify the Tribunal and all parties and their representatives, in writing, of any change in their contact information.

7I am satisfied that the Tribunal has made several attempts to contact the applicant at the contact information he provided to the Tribunal. Therefore, in these circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

order

8The Application is dismissed.