HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Commission
-and-
Sylvie Lestage
Complainant
-and-
Rénozone Express Inc.
and Mario Labre
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Caroline Rowan
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
400 University Avenue, 7th Floor
Toronto ON M7A 1T7
Phone (416) 314-0004 Fax (416) 314-8743 Toll free 1-800-668-3946
TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168
E-mail hrto.registrar@jus.gov.on.ca
Website www.hrto.ca
INTRODUCTION
1This is a complaint brought under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (“the Code”) by Ms. Sylvie Lestage (“the complainant”) alleging that the Respondents, Rénozone Express Inc. and Mr. Mario Labre, infringed sections 5(1) and 9 of the Code.
2By interim decision dated September 12, 2006 in this matter, the Tribunal sought confirmation from the Commission that proper notice of these proceedings and of the Commission’s request for a written hearing had been provided to the Corporate Respondent, Rénozone Express Inc. The Tribunal directed the Commission as follows:
to serve forthwith a copy of [the September 12, 2006] decision to the Corporate Respondent at the last registered address on file with the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services for Rénozone Express Inc. and to provide the Tribunal with confirmation of such service.
to provide the Tribunal by September 29, 2006 with an up to date Corporation Profile Report showing the last registered business address on file with the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services for Rénozone Express Inc. and showing the names and addresses of the directors of Rénozone Express Inc.
The Tribunal also noted that it would consider the Commission’s request for a written hearing once that information was received.
3By correspondence dated September 25, 2006, the Commission advised the Tribunal that a copy of the Tribunal’s interim decision of September 12, 2006 had been sent to the last registered address on file with the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services [Now called the Ministry of Government Services, Companies and Personal Property Security Branch]. The Commission also enclosed a copy of a Corporation Profile Report produced on September 12, 2006, which shows the last registered address of the corporation and identifies Jacques Labre as the only director and lists his address. The Corporation Profile Report indicates that the registered office address and the mailing address of Rénozone Express Inc. is as follows:
Jacques Labre
1010 Spence Avenue
Hawkesbury, Ontario
Canada K6A 3H9
4The Corporation Profile Report further indicates that Mr. Jacques Labre is a director of Rénozone Express Inc. and that his address is as follows:
Jacques Labre
378 Front Road West
Hawkesbury, Ontario
Canada K6A 2R2
5This decision will therefore now address the Commission’s request for a written hearing.
FACTS
6The Complaint was referred to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“the Tribunal”) on October 13, 2005.
7On November 4, 2005, the Tribunal held an Initial Conference Call (“ICC”) pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice 2004 (“the Rules”). Notice of the ICC was provided to all parties by way of formal Notice dated October 20, 2005. That Notice read, in part:
NOTICE OF INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL
The Ontario Human Rights Commission has referred the Complaint of Sylvie Lestage dated October 15, 2003, to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario pursuant to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended. The Tribunal received the referral on October 13, 2005.
The proceeding before the Tribunal will commence by Initial Conference Call on:
Date: November 4, 2005 Time: 1:30 p.m.
Important – If You Do NOT Participate in the Initial Conference Call
If you are not available to receive the conference call, either personally or through a representative, the call may proceed without your participation. You (or your representative) will receive a memorandum setting out the matters discussed during the call.
How we will contact you
The information provided to us by the Commission indicates that the appropriate telephone number at which to contact you is:
Name Phone Number
Sylvie Lestage 613-678-5351
Eyves Gagnon 613-632-0500
Mario Labre 613-632-1926
Anthony Griffin 613-536-7250
If you are a party represented by legal counsel or other representative, and we have a record of this (see above), this call will be placed to your counsel or representative only, unless you advise us that you wish to be on the call as well.
If the number indicated above is incorrect, or if you would prefer to take the call at another number, please contact Nadia Jevremovic of our office at (416) 314-8435 or toll free 1-800-668-3946 immediately. As well, if your representative or counsel is not noted above, please advise our office immediately.
What To Do If You Cannot Participate in the Initial Conference Call
Your conference call has been scheduled to provide the maximum amount of advance notice to all parties. This conference call cannot be re-scheduled or adjourned to a later date. If you are unable to take the call from the telephone number shown above, the following options are available:
as this call may last anywhere from 20 minutes to 1 hour, see if it is possible to adjust your schedule so that you can be available for the call; OR
appoint someone to take the call in your place. Be sure to authorize the person to agree to the items listed below by giving them information from your schedule, as well as any other information that may be necessary to schedule the hearing (for example, your preference for hearing location or accommodation for a disability); OR
you may take the call from another telephone number by either dialing in to be connected or by having our operator connect you (a number will be given to you ahead of time), regardless of where you may be; OR
you may request the conference call to be re-scheduled to an earlier date, provided that you: a) obtain the consent of all other parties to the new date; b) call the Tribunal’s office to ensure that the new date is convenient to the Tribunal, and c) submit your request in writing as quickly as possible to allow Tribunal staff sufficient time to change the call arrangements.
What Will Be Discussed During the Initial Conference Call
The following matters will be discussed during the conference call:
confirmation of parties’ names and addresses and those of their representatives for purposes of service;
identifying any person(s) not already named in the Complaint who may be affected by the proceeding and should be given notice;
confirmation of dates for exchange of pleadings and disclosure as established by the Tribunal’s Rules;
where the parties consent, setting a mediation date;
where necessary, identifying and canvassing dates for argument of any preliminary motions;
canvassing dates for the hearing on the merits; and
identifying any accommodation needs (e.g., wheelchair access, etc.)
Tribunal’s Rules of Practice
Parties and Counsel who do not have a copy of our new Rules can download them from our website at www.hrto.ca or are welcome to call (416) 314-2079 or e-mail at hrto.registrar@jus.gov.on.ca and a copy will be sent to them. Please read these Rules carefully, as you will be expected to comply with them.
If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to call Nadia Jevremovic, Hearings Officer at (416) 314-8435 or toll-free at 1-800-668-3946.
8The Personal Respondent, Mario Labre, participated in the conference call. However, the Corporate Respondent neither participated in the ICC nor did it contact the Registrar in advance of the ICC date to advise of its representative’s unavailability. The Tribunal proceeded with the ICC in the absence of the Corporate Respondent.
9By correspondence dated January 30, 2006, Mr. Lachapelle of Lachapelle Law Office advised the Tribunal that the respondent, Rénozone Express Inc., has discontinued all operations since December 2004. In response to this correspondence, counsel for the Commission indicated that it did not doubt the assertion that the respondent, Rénozone Express Inc., is not carrying on business, but noted its position that in the absence of the bankruptcy of either of the responding parties herein, Rénozone Express Inc. and Mario Labre, the hearing of this complaint can continue. The Commission provided the Tribunal with a bankruptcy search, which shows that Mr. Jacques Labre, the owner of Rénozone Express Inc. (2017033 Ontario Ltd.,) is in bankruptcy as of December 6, 2005 but shows no reference to Renozone Express Inc. or 2017033 Ontario Ltd. or 2017033 Ontario Corp.
10Dates were fixed for the exchange of pleadings and by letter dated April 12, 2006 sent to all parties (including the Corporate Respondent), the Tribunal confirmed that the Commission and the Complainant were to file their pleadings by May 8, 2006, the Respondents were to file pleadings by June 2, 2006 and replies, if any, were to be filed by June 9, 2006. The Commission did file its pleadings on May 8, 2006 and provided the Tribunal with a statement of service indicating that its statement of facts and issues was served on the Complainant as well as the Personal and the Corporate Respondent. None of the other parties filed pleadings. As noted above, the Commission requested by letter dated July 21, 2006 that the complaint be disposed of by way of written hearing. The Commission indicated that it could provide its evidence by affidavit and make submissions with respect to the applicable law.
11By interim decision dated September 12, 2006, the Tribunal noted that there does not appear to be any reason why this complaint cannot proceed as against Mario Labre and Rénozone Express Inc., since there is no information before the Tribunal to suggest that either the Personal or Corporate Respondent herein are in bankruptcy.
DECISION
12The Tribunal has the authority under section 5.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (the “SPPA”) to hold a written hearing in appropriate circumstances (Sanford v. Koop, 2005 HRTO 28). Section 5.1 of the SPPA reads as follows:
Written Hearings
5.1(1) A tribunal whose rules made under section 25.1 deal with written hearings may hold a written hearing in a proceeding.
Exception
(2) The tribunal shall not hold a written hearing if a party satisfies the tribunal that there is good reason for not doing so.
Same
(2.1) Subsection (2) does not apply if the only purpose of the hearings to deal with procedural matters.
(3) In a written hearing, all parties are entitled to receive every document that the tribunal receives in the proceeding.
13Rule 6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice 2004 (the “Rules”) deals with written hearings as follows:
- Any part of a proceeding may be conducted in person, by way of written hearing, or electronically by video or telephone conference at the discretion of the panel in accordance with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
[emphasis added]
The Tribunal may therefore hold a written hearing unless a party satisfies the Tribunal that there is good reason for not doing so.
14As noted in Sanford v. Koop, cited above, where a respondent in a proceeding chooses not to participate in the proceeding, the Tribunal is unlikely to schedule an oral hearing where the Commission or the Complainant requests a written hearing. The Tribunal reasoned as follows at paragraph 21 of that decision:
21Where a respondent chooses not to participate in the legal processes established for the determination of a complaint which has been referred to the Tribunal, and the Commission or the complainant requests a written hearing, it would be the rare case where a full oral hearing would nonetheless be scheduled. Requiring the parties to attend an oral hearing, call viva voce evidence and present oral argument would place an unnecessary strain on the resources of the parties and the Tribunal, and would do nothing to further the principles set out in the Rules and SPPA.
In that case, the Tribunal also discussed the nature of the evidence that would normally be required at a written hearing and in this regard noted that mere pleadings are not sufficient to establish an evidentiary basis for findings of fact and remedial orders. However, affidavits or statutory declarations by persons who would otherwise have provided viva voce evidence had the hearing been held as an oral hearing would generally be a proper form of evidence. In addition, the Tribunal noted that it is always open to parties to make submissions as to the appropriate form of evidence in a written hearing in a particular case.
15In the present case, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate to issue a Notice of Written Hearing having regard to the Commission’s request for a written hearing, the failure of the Corporate Respondent to participate in the proceedings to date, and the failure of both respondents to file any pleadings in this matter.
16Section 6(4) of the SPPA provides that a Notice of Written Hearing include certain information. Section 6(4) of the SPPA reads as follows:
- (4) A notice of a written hearing shall include,
a) a statement of the date and purpose of the hearing, and details about the manner in which the hearing will be held;
b) a statement that the hearing shall not be held as a written hearing if the party satisfies the tribunal that there is good reason for not holding a written hearing (in which case the tribunal is required to hold it as an electronic or oral hearing) and an indication of the procedure to be followed for that purpose;
c) a statement that if the party is notified neither acts under clause (b) nor participates in the hearing in accordance with the notice, the tribunal may proceed without the party’s participation and the party will not be entitled to any further notice in the proceeding.
17Having regard to the request of the Commission and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal will issue a Notice of Written Hearing, subject to the conditions set out below.
ORDER
18In light of the above, the Tribunal makes the following Order:
a. The Tribunal will, subject to paragraphs b, c and d below, conduct a written hearing to determine the merits of the Complaint.
b. If the Complainant or the Respondents object to proceeding by way of written hearing, they shall no later than November 8, 2006 file with the Tribunal and serve on the other parties, submissions as to why there is good reason not to conduct the proceedings by way of written hearing and at the same time include submissions as to the appropriate procedures to be followed if, notwithstanding their objection, the Tribunal determines that it is appropriate to hold a written hearing.
c. If any submissions are filed as set out above, the other parties shall have 5 days thereafter to file and serve their replies.
d. Should any of the parties object to a written hearing on the merits, the Tribunal will issue a decision setting out whether the case will proceed by written or oral hearing.
e. Should no objection be received as set out in paragraph b above, the Commission and the Complainant shall, no later than November 22, 2006, serve and file all evidence, documents, submissions and argument upon which they seek the Tribunal to consider in making a decision on the merits of the Complaint and with respect to appropriate remedy.
f. The Respondents shall, no later than December 6, 2006, file any responding material.
g. In the event that a party does not object to proceeding by way of written hearing as contemplated under b above and fails to participate in the hearing in accordance with this notice, the Tribunal may proceed without that party’s participation and that party will not be entitled to any further notice in the proceeding.
h. This Order shall serve as a Notice of Written Hearing.
19Having regard to the information currently before it, the Tribunal directs the Registrar of the Tribunal to send a copy of this decision and future correspondence in this matter to the Corporate Respondent addressed as follows:
Rénozone Express Inc.
Attention: Jacques Labre
1010 Spence Avenue
Hawkesbury, Ontario
Canada K6A 3H9
And to:
Rénozone Express Inc.
Attention: Jacques Labre
378 Front Road West
Hawkesbury, Ontario
Canada K6A 2R2
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of October, 2006.
“Signed By”
Caroline Rowan
Member