Opoku v. 1180850 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 453

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ellen Opoku

Applicant

-and-

1180850 Ontario Limited and Donal Fisher

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: December 31, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 453

Indexed as: Opoku v. 1180850 Ontario

1The 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. After the Tribunal granted a time extension, the personal respondent filed his Response on November 14, 2008. No Response was received from the corporate respondent.

2In a decision dated December 3, 2008 (Opoku v. 1180850 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 352), I ordered that the corporate respondent file a Response by December 8, 2008, together with an explanation why it was not filed in accordance with the deadline contained in the Notice of Application.

3On December 16, 2008, the Tribunal received correspondence from the corporate respondent enclosing its Response. The corporate respondent explained that the late filing was caused by a misunderstanding between the corporation’s shareholders and a former manager who had been charged with filing the Response. The shareholders believed that the former manager had filed the Response on time.

4A Tribunal application is a legal proceeding. It is each party’s duty to accord the Tribunal process the necessary attention to comply with its procedural directives. In the present case, it appears the corporation only became aware on December 10, 2008 that its former manager had not filed the Response. The corporation then took immediate action to contact the Tribunal and file a Response. It is not necessary for me to assess the veracity of the corporate respondent’s explanation.

5I do not find there is any reason to deny the corporate respondent’s request to file a late Response. Although the Response was received eight days past the deadline imposed in the previous Interim Decision, the corporate respondent has provided an explanation that, if assumed to be true, is plausible. The corporate respondent has also expressed regret for the oversight. The Tribunal will accept and process the Response, subject to the applicant’s right to raise prejudice by way of Reply in relation to the late filing.

6All parties have agreed to attempt mediation. The Registrar will schedule this matter for mediation.

7I am not seized of this matter.