HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ellen Opoku
Applicant
-and-
1180850 Ontario Ltd. o/a Piccadilly Circus and Donal Fisher
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha
Date: December 3, 2008
Citation: 2008 HRTO 352
Indexed as: Opoku v. 1180850 Ontario
[1] The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on October 1, 2008. On October 3, 2008, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application and delivered the Application to the respondents by regular mail at the addresses provided by the applicant. The Notice directed the respondents to file a response with the Tribunal no later than thirty-five (35) days from the date of the Notice. Rule 1.22 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure confirms that a document delivered by mail is deemed received five days after the postmark date.
[2] The Notice of Application and the Application sent to the personal respondent care of the corporate respondent were returned to the Tribunal. The Notice and Application were delivered to the corporate respondent at the same address and not returned to the Tribunal. On November 7, 2008, the personal respondent’s counsel contacted the Tribunal to advise his client had only become aware of the Application the previous day when his employer, the corporate respondent, brought it to his attention. He requested an extension of time for filing a response, which was granted by Registrar’s letter, dated November 14, 2008. The personal respondent’s Response was filed on November 14, 2008.
[3] It is now more than 21 days after the date for filing the Response. The corporate respondent neither requested nor received an extension of time, and has still not filed its Response or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal.
[4] A Tribunal application is a legal proceeding. If a violation of the Code is found the Tribunal may order a respondent to make monetary compensation or other forms of restitution to the applicant and to take steps to future promote compliance with the Code. Failure to file a response may lead to orders against a respondent without their participation. The corporate respondent’s attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules which reads as follows:
Where an Application 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;
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.
[5] The applicant has provided an address and a fax number for the corporate respondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this decision to the corporate respondent by regular mail, courier and fax.
[6] If the corporate respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, a Response must be filed by December 8, 2008, together with an explanation why it was not filed in accordance with the deadline contained in the Notice of Application. If the Response is not received by this date, the Tribunal shall proceed without further notice to the corporate respondent, and may take any or all of the other steps set out in Rule 5.5.
[7] I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of December, 2008.
“Signed by”
Faisal Bhabha
Vice-Chair