Mark Van Echten and Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Trek International Inc. o/a Trek Industrial Machining, Robert Doucette and Manfred Funke, 2008 HRTO 368

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mark Van Echten and Ontario Human Rights Commission

Applicants

-and-

Trek International Inc. o/a Trek Industrial Machining,

Robert Doucette and Manfred Funke

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: December 5, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 368

Indexed as: Van Echten v. Trek International

1The applicants filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on October 8, 2008. The Application relates to the terms of minutes of settlement signed on April 18, 2008 by the applicant in the original complaint, Marc Van Echten and by the respondents, Robert Doucette (in his personal capacity and as president of Trek International Inc. o/a Trek Industrial Machining) and Manfred Funke in his personal capacity. The Application alleges a contravention of the agreement by the corporate respondent with respect to both the monetary remedy and the public interest remedies agreed upon by the parties.

2On October 7, 2008, the Application was delivered by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to Marc Van Echten by email. On October 8, 2008, the Application was delivered by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to Robert Doucette. There is no indication that the Application was delivered to Manfred Funke.

3The Application directed the respondents to file a Response with the Tribunal no later than fourteen (14) days after the delivery of the Application. 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.

4It is now more than 14 days after the date for filing the Response. Robert Doucette has not filed a Response on behalf of the corporate respondent or on his own behalf or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal. There is no indication that the Application was returned to the Commission.

5A Tribunal application is a legal proceeding. If a contravention of the settlement is found the Tribunal may make any order it considers appropriate to remedy the contravention. Failure to file a response may lead to orders against a respondent without their participation. The respondents’ 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.

6The applicant has provided an address and fax number for Robert Doucette as the representative of the corporate respondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this decision to the respondents, other than Manfred Funke, by regular mail, courier and fax. The Tribunal will also send a copy of the decision by courier to Bradley Troup of Sullivan Mahoney, 40 Queen Street, P.O. Box 1360, St. Catherines, Ontario, L2R 6Z2, who appeared as counsel for the respondents at the mediation.

7If the respondents wish to participate in this proceeding, a Response must be filed by 10 days from the date of this decision together with an explanation why it was not filed in accordance with the deadline contained in the Application. If the Response is not received by this date, the Tribunal shall proceed without further notice to the non-responding respondent or respondents, and may take any or all of the other steps set out in Rule 5.5.

8I am not seized of this matter.