HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Leo Milot

Applicant

-and-

Steve Asmussen Racing Stables

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: August 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1316

Indexed as: Milot v. Steve Asmussen Racing Stables

[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 record of offences in respect of employment.

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

[3] On April 17, 2009, the Tribunal sent the Application to the respondent, the Steve Asmussen Racing Stables, by regular mail to a Texas address for the respondent which had been 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. The respondent did not file a Response in accordance with the Tribunal’s direction. The Tribunal’s April 17, 2009 correspondence to the respondent was not returned.

[4] On June 12, 2009, the applicant provided the Tribunal with an alternate address for the respondent. On July 3, 2009, the Tribunal sent the respondent a second Notice of Application by regular mail to the alternate address, also in Texas, together with a direction to respond no later than thirty five (35) days from that date, in accordance with the Tribunal Rules. It has now been more than 10 days since the Response was due. The respondent has not filed a Response in accordance with the Tribunal’s direction. The Tribunal’s July 3, 2009 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 courier and regular mail to the respondent at both of the Texas addresses provided for it by the applicant and also to the Ontario address for the respondent provided by the applicant. The Tribunal notes that this is also the address for the respondent which appears on copies of paycheques and paystubs which the applicant alleges he received from the respondent, which documents he has filed with the Tribunal. The Tribunal will also fax a copy of this Interim Decision to the fax number for the respondent provided in the Application.

[7] If the respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, it shall file a Response by September 9, 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 27^th^ day of August, 2009.

“Signed By”

Sheri D. Price

Vice-chair