minicounsel

John Stefanski v. Coilpac Inc., 2009 HRTO 1108 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

July 22, 2009

John Stefanski v. Coilpac Inc., 2009 HRTO 1108

Case Summary

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment. The corporate respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period. The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response by a specified date, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John Stefanski

Applicant

-and-

Coilpac Inc.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: July 22, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1108

Indexed as: Stefanski v. Coilpac

[1] This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (‘the Code”) which alleges that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of age in respect of employment.

[2] This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s failure to file a Response to the Application.

[3] On June 1, 2009, the Tribunal sent the Application to the corporate respondent by regular mail at the address for it provided by the applicant, together with a direction to respond no later than thirty five (35) days from that date, in accordance with the Tribunal Rules. 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.

[4] It has now been more than 10 days since the Response was due. The respondent has not filed a Response and the Tribunal’s correspondence to the respondent has not been returned.

[5] 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 may lead to orders against respondents without further notice or 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.

[6] The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision by regular mail, courier and email to the respondent at the contact information provided in the Application.

[7] If the respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, it shall file a Response by July 31, 2009, together with an explanation why its Response was not filed by the deadline in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. 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.

[8] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 22^nd^ day of July, 2009.

“Signed by”

Sheri D. Price

Vice-chair