HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Commission
-and-
Irma Romano
Complainant
-and-
1577118 Ontario Inc. o/a La Luna by the Lake Restaurant and
Antonio Piemontese
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
400 University Avenue, 7^th^ 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 Irma Romano alleging that the Respondents, 1577118 Ontario Inc o/a La Luna by the Lake Restaurant (the “Corporate Respondent”) and Mr. Antonio Piemontese, (the “Personal Respondent”) infringed sections 5(1), 7(2) and (3) and 9 of the Code.
2By correspondence dated July 20, 2006, the Commission requested that the complaint be disposed of by way of written hearing.
3Prior to considering this request, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to seek confirmation that proper notice of these proceedings, including notice and delivery of the Commission’s pleadings and request for a written hearing, have been made on the Corporate and Personal Respondents.
4By way of background, the Tribunal notes that the Complaint was referred to the Tribunal on April 25, 2006. At or around the same date, the Commission notified the parties of its decision to refer the complaint to the Tribunal.
5On May 5, 2006, Notice of Initial Conference Call was sent to the parties at the addresses provided by the Commission at the time of the initial referral. In particular, the Tribunal served the Respondents at the following addresses:
Mr. Antonio Piemontese, Owner
1577118 Ontario Inc. o/a
La Luna by the Lake Restaurant
5 Roncesvalles Avenue
Toronto ON M6R 2K2
Mr. Antonio Piemontese
210 Weston Road, Apt. 208
Toronto ON M6N 3P1
6However, after sending its notice, the Tribunal received a copy of a letter dated May 15, 2006 sent to the Personal Respondent from the Commission indicating that the Personal Respondent had been originally served at an incorrect address. The correspondence provided as follows:
The enclosed letter was mailed from the Commission to you on April 21, 2006. It was mailed to 210 Weston Road instead of 201 Weston Road. A letter has also been enclosed from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario setting a conference call for May 25, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. However, we do not have a phone number for you.
It is very important that you advise the Tribunal of your phone number so you can take part in the conference call.
Please call Nadia Jevremovic at (416) 314-0004 and advise her of your phone number as soon as possible.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
7On or about May 19, 2006, the Personal Respondent contacted Nadia Jevremovic, the Hearings Officer of the Tribunal, by telephone. The Personal Respondent advised, among other things, that he would not be on the initial conference call, that his restaurant, La Luna by the Lake had closed, that he was being evicted soon, and that his phone line would be cut off May 25, 2006.
8On May 25, 2006, the Initial Conference Call was held. The Corporate Respondent and Personal Respondent did not participate in the call. During the call, the Commission undertook to advise the Tribunal within one week as to the addresses for service to the Respondents of the proceeding.
9On June 2, 2006, the Commission advised that the business named 1577118 Ontario Inc. o/a La Luna by the Lake Restaurant was still active and that neither the business or the Personal Respondent had made a filing of bankruptcy. Supporting documentation was provided to the Tribunal including a Corporation Profile Report, dated May 15, 2006 and an Insolvency Search Report in respect of each of the Respondents, dated June 1, 2006. The Corporation Profile Report listed the Personal Respondent as the administrator and President of the Corporate Respondent. The registered office address of the corporation was listed as 5 Roncesvalles Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6R 2K2 (the “registered office address”). The mailing address of the Corporation was listed as 201 Weston Road, Suite 208, Toronto, Ontario M6N 3P1 (the “Corporation’s mailing address”). In addition, the Commission indicated that the Personal Respondent and his parents had both confirmed in a telephone conversation with Chris McCloy, law clerk with the Commission that the Personal Respondent “resides in Weston Road”. As a result of the foregoing, the Commission submitted that the addresses for service were:
The Corporate Respondent:
1577118 Ontario Inc. o/a La Luna by the Lake Restaurant
5 Roncesvalles Avenue
Toronto, Ontario, M6R 2K2
201 Weston Road
Suite 208
Toronto, Ontario M6N 3P1
The Personal Respondent
Antonio Piemontese
201 Weston Road
Suite 208
Toronto, Ontario, M6N 3P1
10On June 8, 2006, the Tribunal sent the letter confirming matters determined at the Initial Conference Call by Purolator to the Respondents at the addresses provided by the Commission. The Tribunal’s instructions to Purolator are to obtain a signature for the packages sent. The correspondence was returned to the Tribunal.
11On July 21, 2006, the Commission wrote to the Tribunal enclosing its Pleadings and various Statements of Service. In its letter, the Commission described its efforts to serve the Respondents and submitted that the Personal Respondent was continuing to evade service and had failed to provide the Commission and the Tribunal with any alternative information with respect to his address and telephone numbers. In light of this, the Commission, with the consent of the Complainant, requested that a written hearing be held.
12In addition to information already provided to the Tribunal in earlier correspondence, the Commission indicated that on May 15, 2006, the Commission had conducted several searches in Equifax, Ministry of Transportation of Ontario and 411 to locate the current address for the Personal Respondent. Equifax and Ministry of Transportation of Ontario identified the Personal Respondent’s address as “201 Weston Road”. With respect to the 411 searches, the Commission stated:
The 411 searches did not list Piemontese, but did list several other Piemontese names. The Commission called Benito Piemontese at (905) 832-8675 from the list and he advised the Commission that he knew Antonio and that he would notify Antonio that the Commission was trying to locate him.
13As noted above, the Commission sent the referral letter enclosing the Tribunal’s Notice of Initial Conference Call dated May 5, 2006 to the address at “201 Weston Road”. According to the Commission, Purolator returned this correspondence.
14According to the information provided to the Tribunal, the Commission served its pleadings on the Corporate Respondent by Purolator courier at the registered office address for the Corporation; and on the Personal Respondent at the mailing address for the Corporation and c/o Benito Piemontese. The Commission provided copies of its Purolator slips for each mailing. The address on the Purolator slip for the mailing address for the Corporation is 201 Weston Road, Toronto, ON M6R 3P1. This address does not include the suite number and has a different postal code from the postal code on the Corporation Profile Report. In addition, in serving the Personal Respondent c/o Benito Piemontese, identified as a “friend/relative of Personal Respondent Antonio Piemontese”, the Purolator slip lists the address as 35 Fairmont Avenue, Maple, Ontario, whereas the accompanying cover letter of its materials lists the same street address, but a municipal address of Toronto, Ontario. No postal code is provided on either the Purolator slip or the accompanying cover letter. As well, there is no indication in the Commission’s correspondence as to whether the packages served on the Respondents at any of the addresses were signed for, left at the addresses or unable to be delivered.
15The Corporate and Personal Respondents did not file any pleadings nor provide any disclosure within the time fixed by the Tribunal. Moreover, apart from the telephone call on or about May 16^th^, 2006, the Respondents have not communicated in any way with the Tribunal.
DECISION
16Rule 20 of the Tribunal’s rules permits documents to be served on a person in various ways including by courier to the person’s last known address. In addition, Rule 24 provides that the Tribunal can direct the Commission or other party to take steps to confirm that service has effectively been made on a person.
17In the circumstances of this case before considering whether a written hearing may be appropriate, the Tribunal seeks confirmation that proper notice of these proceedings, including notice and delivery of the Commission’s pleadings and request for a written hearing have been provided to the Respondents in accordance with the Rules.
18In this respect, it would appear that the Commission served its pleadings by courier on the Corporate Respondent at the registered office address for the Corporation listed on the Corporation Profile Report. For reasons unstated, the Commission did not serve the Corporate Respondent at the mailing address for the Corporation, although it specified that the Tribunal should serve at both the registered office address and mailing address. A completed Statement of Service has been filed with the Tribunal attesting to service of the pleadings at the registered office address.
19With respect to the Personal Respondent, it does not appear from the documentation filed with the Tribunal that proper notice of the pleadings have been given to the Personal Respondent. In this respect, the Commission appears to have attempted service at two addresses: the Weston Road address, which was identified as the mailing address on the Corporation Profile Report and reportedly described by the Respondent and his parent(s) as his home address; and c/o Benito Piemontese at the address listed for that individual, an address not previously provided to the Tribunal. As detailed above, the address details provided on the courier slips for both deliveries are either incomplete or inconsistent with other documentation identifying the addresses which have been filed with the Tribunal.
20Further, in the case of both service of the pleadings to the Corporate Respondent and the Personal Respondent, it is unclear to the Tribunal from the information provided as to whether the pleadings were able to be delivered or not, since the Commission’s correspondence does not indicate whether delivery was signed for, left at the addresses served or returned by the courier.
21The Tribunal requires there be clear evidence of the steps taken by the Commission to serve the Respondents in this matter including evidence that the material was actually served at the addresses identified as the appropriate addresses for service and evidence of whether the materials served were able to be delivered or not. Given that the Commission appears to be relying on verbal reports as well as business records to establish the Respondents’ addresses, the evidence provided to the Tribunal should be in the form of an affidavit.
ORDER
Accordingly, the Tribunal directs the Commission:
(1) to serve forthwith by courier a copy of this decision, along with a copy of the Commission’s pleadings and request for a written hearing on the Corporate Respondent at the Corporation’s mailing address
(2) to serve forthwith by courier a copy of this decision, along with a copy of the Commission’s pleadings and request for a written hearing on the Personal Respondent, at the last known address for the Personal Respondent, and in an abundance of caution, c/o Benito Piemontese, at the last known address for Benito Piemontese
(3) to provide confirmation of service in respect of the documents served in paragraph 1 and 2 herein
(4) to provide to the Tribunal by November 15, 2006 an affidavit detailing the steps taken to serve the Respondents in this matter, including the full addresses served, the reasons for serving at those addresses and the tracking of the delivery of any documents served.
22The Tribunal will consider the Commission’s request for a written hearing once the foregoing is received.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of November, 2006.
“Signed By”
Kathleen Martin
Member