minicounsel

Andrew Hayward v. Fairway Publications Inc. and Peter Mumford, 2009 HRTO 1129 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

July 23, 2009

Andrew Hayward v. Fairway Publications Inc. and Peter Mumford, 2009 HRTO 1129

Case Summary

The applicant filed a human rights application. The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period. The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a Response by a specified final deadline could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrew Hayward

Applicant

-and-

Fairway Publications Inc. and Peter Mumford

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: July 23, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1129

Indexed as: Hayward v. Fairway Publications

[1] The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on June 1, 2009. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ failure to file a Response to the Application.

[2] On June 11, 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. The Notice directed the respondents to file a Response with the Tribunal no later than thirty-five (35) days from the date of the Notice.

[3] 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. It is now more than five days after the date for filing the Response. The respondents have not filed a Response, or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s Notice has not been returned.

[4] A Tribunal Application is a legal proceeding. If a violation of the Code is found the Tribunal may order a respondent to provide monetary compensation or other forms of restitution to the applicant and to take steps to promote future compliance with the Code. 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.

[5] The applicant has provided a postal address for the respondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondent by regular mail, courier and email.

[6] If the respondents wish to participate in this proceeding, a Response must be filed by July 30, 2009 together with an explanation why it was not filed in accordance with the deadline contained in the Notice of Application. If the Response is not received by this date, the Tribunal shall proceed without further notice to the respondent, and may take any or all of the other steps set out in Rule 5.5.

[7] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 23^rd day of July, 2009.

“Signed by”

Ken Bhattacharjee

Vice-chair