HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jemila Maconovic
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Police Services Board
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin
Indexed as: Maconovic v. Toronto Police Services Board
Background
[[1]] On January 30, 2009, the applicant filed an Application under Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability. In an earlier Interim Decision dated February 20, 2009, the Tribunal directed that the Application be brought before it at a hearing on March 5, 2009 in respect of Tribunal File HR-1393-07 to hear the parties’ submissions as to the manner of proceeding since there appeared to be some overlap between the Application and the subject matter of the Tribunal File HR-1393-07. Following the hearing, on May 15, 2009, the Tribunal determined that the Application would proceed separately from Tribunal File HR-1393-07 and be processed in the normal course. Further, the Tribunal directed that the Application be delivered to the respondent, along with a copy of its Interim Decision in Maconovic v. Toronto Police Services Board 2009 HRTO 642.
[2] On May 15, 2009, the Tribunal sent the Application to the respondent by regular mail at the address provided by the applicant, with an additional copy of the Notice of Application to Robert J. Baldwin, who acted as Counsel to the respondent at the hearing on March 5, 2009. In accordance with the Tribunal Rules, the Notice of Application contained a direction to respond no later than thirty five (35) days from that date. Under Rule 1.22 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, a document delivered by mail is deemed received five days after the postmark date.
[3] It has now been more than ten days since the Response was due. The Tribunal has not received a Response from the respondent, nor has its correspondence been returned.
[4] A 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 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which reads as follows:
5.5 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 for the respondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondent by regular mail and courier. In addition, the Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to Robert J. Baldwin by regular mail, courier, and email.
[6] If the respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, a Response must be filed within ten days from the date of receipt of this Interim Decision together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed earlier in accordance with the Tribunal Rules and the direction contained in the Notice sent May 15, 2009. If a Response is not received by this date, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondent, and may take any or all of the other steps set out in Rule 5.5.
2
7I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of July, 2009.
“Signed By”
Kathleen Martin
Vice-chair
3