Bussey v. Boardwalk General Partnership, 2008 HRTO 300

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul Bussey

Applicant

-and-

Boardwalk General Partnership, Sam Kolias and Jonathan Brimmell

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: November 24, 2008 Citation: 2008 HRTO 300 Indexed as: Bussey v. Boardwalk General Partnership

1This is an Application filed September 8, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). In Interim Decision 2008 HRTO 159 the Tribunal set deadlines for the exchange of materials and directed the scheduling of a case resolution conference.

2On October 31, 2008 the applicant sought to defer the processing of his application in light of a serious medical condition. Documentary evidence was provided. The Tribunal sought the submissions of the respondents, but none were received.

3In the circumstances, the deadlines for providing additional statements of facts and disclosure are cancelled and the Tribunal will not schedule a case resolution conference until the applicant advises the Tribunal and the other parties that he is fit to resume participation in this process.

4However, the Tribunal notes that the respondents have not filed a Response. The applicant's statement of delivery states that he delivered the Application by courier to the same address listed on the original complaint. Tribunal Notices sent to that address have not been returned.

5A Tribunal application is a legal proceeding, which, if a violation of the Code is found, may lead to various orders, including monetary compensation, other forms of restitution to the applicant, and orders to take action to promote compliance with the Code. Failure to file a response or participate in a Tribunal proceeding may lead to orders against individual and corporate respondents without their participation. The respondent's attention is drawn to Rule 3.2 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure for applications under Section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, which reads as follows:

3.2 Where an Application (Form A) is delivered to a Respondent who does not respond to the Application, the Tribunal may:

a) deem the Respondent to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application, including the allegations set out in the complaint;

b) proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to the Respondent;

c) deem the Respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding;

d) decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal.

6Although the Application is being held in abeyance, it would be fair, just and expeditious to have the respondents' Response at this time, in order to avoid delay once the applicant is ready to proceed. Accordingly, the respondents are ordered to file their Response (Form B) within 10 days of receipt of this decision manner, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed by the deadline in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules. If a Response is not received by this date, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondents, and may take any or all of the other steps set out in Rule 3.2.