Szabo v. Casa Industries et al., 2007 HRTO 21

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joanne Szabo

Complainant

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Commission

-and-

Casa Industries, Michael Poley and Sheri Allison

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: July 25, 2007

Citation: 2007 HRTO 21

Indexed as: Szabo v. Casa Industries et al.

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

BACKGROUND

1This is the second Interim Decision dealing with the Commission’s request for a written hearing in this matter. In the previous decision, Szabo v. Casa Industries, 2007 HRTO 18, I found that it had not been demonstrated that effective notice of the proceedings had been given to the estate of Sheri Allison and Casa Industries, and that while effective notice of the proceedings had been given to Michael Poley, he had not received effective notice of the Commission’s request for a written hearing. The Commission was directed, at para. 25 to provide the Tribunal with each of the following prior to July 31, 2007:

(i) either evidence that notice of these proceedings and of the Commission’s request for a written hearing has been provided to the estate of Sheri Allison or notification that the Commission and Complainant request the removal of Sheri Allison as a Respondent

(ii) either evidence and submissions indicating how effective notice has been provided to Casa Industries and explaining the legal basis on which the Tribunal is asked to make an order against it or notification that the Commission and Complainant request the removal of Casa Industries as a Respondent

(iii) evidence of service of its request for a written hearing upon Michael Poley at his current address.

2By letter dated July 6, 2007, counsel for the Commission requested, on behalf of the Commission and the Complainant, the removal of Sheri Allison and Casa Industries as Respondents. On July 20, 2007, the Commission filed a letter and accompanying affidavit, which included the courier slip confirming that the request for a written hearing was delivered to the address to which the previous correspondence was redirected.

3The Commission and the Complainant’s request to remove Sheri Allison and Casa Industries as Respondents is granted. The only remaining Respondent is Mr. Poley. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr. Poley has received notice of these proceedings and of the request for a written hearing as shown in the affidavit evidence filed by the Commission.

4The Tribunal is also satisfied that Mr. Poley has chosen not to participate in these proceedings. While he did sign a response to the initial complaint, the Commission’s affidavit evidence indicates that he communicated to the Investigation Officer that he would not cooperate in the investigation. Mr. Poley did not attend on the Tribunal’s Initial Conference Call despite notice being provided to him and has not filed pleadings in accordance with the deadline set by the Tribunal.

5The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr. Poley has been given effective notice of these proceedings, that he has chosen not to participate, and that this is an appropriate case in which to hold a written hearing, in accordance with the criteria and process set out in Sanford v. Koop, 2005 HRTO 28, to determine whether Mr. Poley is liable for a violation of the Complainant’s rights under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended and the appropriate remedy if a violation is found.

ORDER

6The Tribunal therefore makes the following order:

a. Sheri Allison and Casa Industries are removed as Respondents.

b. The Tribunal will, subject to paragraphs c, d and e below, conduct a written hearing to determine the merits of the complaint.

c. If Mr. Poley objects to proceeding by way of written hearing, he shall, no later than August 7, 2007, 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. Mr. Poley should at the same time include submissions as to the appropriate procedures to be followed if, notwithstanding his objections, the Tribunal determines that it is appropriate to hold a written hearing.

d. If Mr. Poley files submissions as set out above, the Commission and the Complainant shall have five days to file and serve their replies.

e. Should the Respondent 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.

f. Should Mr. Poley fail to provide submissions as set out in paragraph c above or advise the Tribunal of his desire to make submissions and/or present evidence in the written hearing by August 7, 2007, the Tribunal will proceed without his participation and he will not be entitled to any further notice of these proceedings in accordance with section 6(4)(c) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, as amended.

g. Should Mr. Poley fail to provide submissions as set out in paragraph c above, the Commission and the Complainant shall, no later than September 3, 2007, serve and file all evidence, documents, submissions and argument which they ask the Tribunal to consider in making a decision on the merits of the complaint and with respect to the appropriate remedy.

h. This Order shall serve as a Notice of Written Hearing.