HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Victoria Comeau
Applicant
-and-
Niagara Shoe Factory Outlet and Lisa Graycheski
Respondents
INTERIM decision
Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim
Indexed as: Comeau v. Niagara Shoe Factory Outlet
INTRODUCTION
1This is an Application filed on December 31, 2008, under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The complaint underlying the Application was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on May 31, 2007, against Niagara Shoe Factory Outlet and Lisa Graycheski. The address provided for the corporate respondent was in Fort Erie, Ontario. The applicant filed a statement of delivery (Form C) confirming that a copy of the Application had been hand-delivered to the Fort Erie office. The applicant subsequently provided the Tribunal with information that the corporate respondent had closed its Fort Erie location and provided an address in Port Colbourne. This address is also consistent with the record of employment submitted by the applicant. The Tribunal has sent its correspondence to the Port Colbourne address.
3The personal respondent filed a Response advising that she was a mere employee and not involved in hiring and firing.
4The corporate respondent has not filed a Response. While there was some initial confusion concerning whether the corporate respondent was insolvent, a letter from KPMG Inc. confirmed that they were not aware that the retail operation of Niagara Shoe Factory Outlet was insolvent.
5In these circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied the corporate respondent has been served with a copy of the Application and been given notice of the Tribunal proceedings and has failed to deliver a Response.
[6] 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 respondents’ attention is drawn to Rule 3.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications under Section 53(3) and 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, which reads as follows:
3.2 Where an Application (Form A) 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, including the allegations set out in the complaint;
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.
[7] The corporate respondent is directed to file a response (Form B) within 15 days of the date of this Interim Decision, together with an explanation why the Response was not filed earlier and should be accepted. If the Response is not received by this date, the Tribunal shall proceed without further notice to the corporate respondent, and may take any or all of the other steps set out in Rule 3.2.
[8] I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of September, 2009.
“Signed by”
Kaye Joachim
Alternate Chair