Teri Landriault v. Dynapple Management Corporation, 2008 HRTO 176

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Teri Landriault

Applicant

-and-

Dynapple Management Corporation o/a Applebee’s Restaurant and John Musicco

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: October 22, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 176

Indexed as: Landriault v. Dynapple Management Corporation

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14^th^ Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2A3 Phone (416) 314-8419 / Fax (416) 314-8743 / Toll free 1-866-598-0322 TTY (416) 314-2379 / (toll free) 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar-transition@ontario.ca Website www.hrto.ca

Reasons for Decision

1This is an Application filed August 15, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). On August 20, 2008 the Tribunal scheduled a mediation for October 20, 2008.

2On September 22, 2008 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to inform her the Tribunal’s notice of confirmation of receipt of an application and notice of mediation had been returned to the Tribunal and advised her of her responsibility to ensure the Application was properly served on the respondents.

3On September 29, 2008 the applicant provided new contact information for the corporate respondent obtained from the assistant general manager of the corporate respondent. On September 30, 2008 the Tribunal delivered its notices to the corporate respondent at the revised address. On October 7, 2008 the corporate respondent wrote to the Tribunal advising it was not available to participate in the October 20 mediation due to a prior commitment. The corporate respondent confirmed receipt of the Application (Form A).

4The Tribunal adjourned the mediation.

5The personal respondent, John Mussico, asserts he was not served with the Application (Form A) although the applicant mailed it to his workplace address. The personal respondent could not explain why material mailed to him at his workplace was returned. In any event, he has since provided the Tribunal with alternative contact information and has been served with all notices previously issued by the Tribunal.

6The respondents have indicated an availability to mediate in December 2008.

7The applicant asserts that the respondents inappropriately returned the Tribunal’s notices, and are attempting to delay the process. She has declined to participate in a rescheduled mediation.

8The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Applications under Section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code (Section 53(3) Rules) and Guide to Section 53(3) Applications contemplate that the first step in a section 53(3) application is a mediation. If mediation is unsuccessful, the mediator will assist the parties to complete a case management checklist (Rule 8) and the Application proceeds to a case resolution conference in accordance with Rule 9.1.

9Where a party refuses to attend the mediation, it may impede the efficient processing of the application, in which case the Tribunal may, in its discretion, issue a case management direction (Rule 5.14) directing the parties to attend at the Tribunal to complete the matters identified in the case management checklist. In this case, however, I am satisfied the application can be processed expeditiously without requiring such attendance.

10In the circumstances of this case, and having regard to the Section 53(3) Rules, the Tribunal will proceed to the next step in the process, which is to prepare for a case resolution conference in accordance with Rule 9.

11Accordingly, the parties are directed as follows:

a. within five days of the date of this decision, the applicant shall deliver a copy of the Application (Form A) to the personal respondent;

b. each respondent shall deliver their Response to the applicant and file it with the Tribunal within 35 days after receiving the Application;

c. within 30 days following the receipt of the respondents’ Response(s), the applicant shall deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal, a statement of any additional facts the applicant intends to rely upon and a description of the remedies sought. In addition, the applicant shall deliver to the respondents a copy of all arguably relevant documents in the applicant’s possession, except where privilege is claimed;

d. within 45 days following the date they filed their Form B, the respondents shall deliver to each other and to the applicant and file with the Tribunal a statement of any additional facts the respondents will rely upon and the respondents’ position with respect to the requested remedies. In addition, the respondents must deliver to each other and to the applicant, a copy of all arguably relevant documents in their possession, except where privilege is claimed.

12The Tribunal will contact the parties to set a date for the case resolution conference. The parties are reminded that the Section 53(3) Rules contemplate that applications under section 53(3) of the Code be dealt with in an expedited manner.