HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Tammy Turner
Complainant
-and-
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Commission
-and-
507638 Ontario Limited, o/a Park Place Sports Bar and Grill and John Matusiak
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: November 28, 2008 Citation: 2008 HRTO 322 Indexed as: Turner v. Park Place Sports Bar and Grill
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
Ontario Human Rights Commission ) Jean C. H. Iu, ) Counsel
INTRODUCTION
1The complainant filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on February 1, 2005 alleging harassment and discrimination in employment against the respondents on the basis of disability contrary to sections 5(1), (2) and 9 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (“the Code”). The Commission referred the complaint to the Tribunal for determination on April 16, 2008.
2On July 9, 2008, the Commission wrote the Tribunal requesting the complaint be determined by written hearing. The respondents have not filed a response to the complaint or responded to the Tribunal’s notices of hearing. By Interim Decision dated July 15, 2008 (2008 HRTO 43), the Tribunal found that the personal respondent had been given adequate notice of the Tribunal proceeding.
3For the reasons set out in the Interim Decision dated July 15, 2008 (2008 HRTO 51), the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent had not been given adequate notice of the proceeding. Specifically, the Commission had not served the corporate respondent at its “Mailing Address” listed on the corporate respondent’s Corporation Profile Report of the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services (“the Corporation Profile Report”). In that decision the Tribunal ordered the Commission to serve its hearing brief and request for written hearing at the address listed on the Corporation Profile Report.
4By letter dated July 21, 2008, the Commission advised the Tribunal the referral and notice of request for written hearing was served by mail on the corporate respondent at the mailing address listed on the Corporate Profile Report. The correspondence was addressed to Michael Williamson.
5On August 11, 2008 the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2008 HRTO 51 finding that the respondents had been given adequate notice of the proceeding and ordered that the complaint proceed by way of written hearing.
6The Commission requested, and received an extension of time to file its written submissions and evidence. The Tribunal received the Commission’s evidence on October 14, 2008, consisting of an affidavit of the complainant and written submissions of the Commission.
7The affidavit and written submissions identify a “Mike Williams” as a manager of the corporate respondent, rather than “Michael Williamson”.
8At paragraphs 13 and 14 of her affidavit, the complainant advised that she had spoken with Mike Williams about the harassment and discrimination she was experiencing. At paragraph 8 of its written submissions the Commission submitted, “[T]he Corporate Respondent was made aware of the discriminatory conduct of Matusiak but failed to take adequate steps to deal with that conduct”. The Commission submitted that it was seeking remedies against both respondents for breaching the Code.
9A difference in a name may not be a problem in all cases. However, I am concerned that the corporate respondent may not have received proper notice of this proceeding. The Commission’s evidence about its efforts to serve “Michael Williamson” as administrator/director of the corporate respondent is at odds with the mention of “Mike Williams” in the complainant’s affidavit and the Commission’s written submissions.
10Therefore, I order the Commission to provide written submissions to the Tribunal within seven (7) days from the date of this decision explaining:
a. Why “Mike Williams” is now being identified as an employee when the Commission had previously identified “Michael Williamson” as the director/administrator of the corporate respondent;
b. Whether the Commission is now of the view that “Mike Williams” or “Michael Williamson” is the appropriate representative of the corporate respondent and the reasons why it takes that view;
c. What, if any, efforts the Commission has made to find Mr. Williams and serve him with the complaint, the referral brief, request for written hearing, complainant’s affidavit, Commission’s written submissions and the Tribunal’s Interim Decisions dated July 15 and August 11, 2008, if the Commission now takes the position that “Mike Williams” is the representative of the corporate respondent.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of November, 2008.
“Signed By”
Alison Renton
Vice-Chair```