Mahesparan v. Kee, 2009 HRTO 1050

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Kothanayake Mahesparan

Applicant

• and-

Debbie Kee, Kevin Hui and Teddianne Beagan

Respondents

• and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1356

Intervenor

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: July 15, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1050

Indexed as: Mahesparan v. Kee

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 January 19, 2009, alleging discrimination in employment against three individual respondents. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to direct the applicant to provide further information with respect to contact information for one personal respondent.

2On February 10, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application and delivered the Application to the respondents by regular mail at the address provided by the applicant, which appears to be an address for the parties' place of employment. Responses were received from Debbie Kee and Kevin Hui. No response has been received from Teddianne Beagan.

3On June 10, 2009, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 814, which was forwarded to the parties by courier delivery. In that Interim Decision, the Tribunal directed personal respondent Beagan to file a Response no later than June 19, 2009. Although the Interim Decision was sent to personal respondent Beagan at the address provided by the applicant, the courier package was returned marked as "undeliverable" due to an incomplete address.

4As explained by the Tribunal in Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347, while the Tribunal forwards completed applications to respondents, it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide accurate contact information and the Tribunal relies on applicants to provide a correct address for respondents named in their applications.

5Rule 6.6(b) provides that the Tribunal will not deal with an application in respect of a respondent who cannot be contacted at the contact information provided by the applicant. Generally, in such cases, the applicant will be required to explain what efforts were undertaken to find and verify a current address for the respondent, and explain why this contact information is believed to be the "most recent address", see Guild, supra, and Begley v. Eratostene, 2009 HRTO 235.

6In the present circumstances, it appears that the contact information provided by the applicant for personal respondent Beagan is either incorrect or incomplete. The Tribunal directs the applicant to verify whether or not the address is accurate and to provide the most current and complete contact information for the respondent. The applicant will be required to make efforts to ascertain an address or contact information for the respondent, or provide information to demonstrate why the address provided in the Application is believed to be correct.

7The Tribunal makes the following order:

a. If the applicant wishes to proceed with this Application including Teddianne Beagan as an individual respondent, the applicant shall, within 20 days of the date of this Interim Decision, provide a current, complete and accurate address for personal respondent Beagan and explain the steps taken to ensure that the address is current, complete and accurate; and

b. If the applicant believes that the address previously provided in the Application is in fact current, complete and accurate contact information for personal respondent Beagan, the applicant shall provide the reasons for that belief, and the steps taken to verify the address is current, complete and accurate.

8I am not seized of this matter.