Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Jeanie Villeneuve
Applicant
-and-
The Dragon Restaurant, a division of 744775 Ontario Inc.,
and Vincent Foo
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price
Indexed as: Villeneuve v. Dragon Restaurant
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2A3 Phone (416) 326-1312 / 1-866-598-0322 Fax (416) 326-2199 / 1-866-355-6099 TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar@ontario.ca Website www.hrto.ca
Reasons for Decision
1Further to the Tribunal’s interim decision of October 22, 2008, Villeneuve v. Dragon Restaurant, 2008 HRTO 175, the personal respondent, Vincent Foo, filed a Response with the Tribunal on October 27, 2008. This decision addresses whether the Tribunal will accept the personal respondent’s Response, in light of the fact that it was filed more than 50 days after it was due, pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
2The personal respondent indicates that he did not file a timely response to the Application because the Application was addressed to “Vincent Fong”, and because he did not have the financial resources to seek legal assistance.
3The fact that the personal respondent did not have the financial resources to obtain legal assistance in this matter was not a valid reason for failing to file a timely response to the Application. If the respondent could not afford to retain legal counsel to prepare and file a response on his behalf, he was obliged to either file a response on his own (which is ultimately what he did do) or, at a minimum, to make a timely request to the Tribunal for an extension of the time limits for filing a response, and providing the reasons for his request.
4In this case, it appears that the personal respondent received the Application when it was originally served and was aware that he was the personal respondent being identified, although incorrectly named. Where it is obvious that a respondent has been misnamed by an applicant but the application has nonetheless been delivered to the respondent, the most appropriate course is for the respondent to file a response, and ask in the response that the Tribunal correct his, her or its name.
5Nonetheless, the Tribunal is prepared to accept the personal respondent’s late Response in this matter, since this proceeding could lead to various orders being made against him and because there might have been some confusion about the personal respondent’s obligation to file a response, given the error in his last name.
6This matter is remitted to the Registrar to be processed in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.
7I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 12th day of November, 2008.
“Signed by”
Sheri D. Price
Vice-Chair