HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Basam Jajo
Applicant
-and-
Autosystems, a division of Magna Electronics Inc. and Sean Asselstine
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan Whyte
Indexed as: Jajo v. Autosystems
[1] The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code R.S.O 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”) on May 22nd, 2009, which alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin.
[2] The corporate respondent filed a Response on June 26, 2009. The individual respondent did not.
[3] In its Interim Decision, Jajo v. Autosystems, 2009 HRTO 1361, the Tribunal noted the failure of the individual respondent to file a Response which was due on August 17, 2009. It stated that the Tribunal would send a copy of the Interim Decision to the individual respondent by regular mail and courier. It further stated that the individual respondent was required to file a Response by September 11, 2009, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the Notice of Application. Finally, it stated that if the Response was not received, the Tribunal might proceed without further notice to the individual respondent and it might take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules.
4That Rule 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 may take any of the other steps in Rule 5.5.
[5] No Response has been received from the individual respondent, despite having received notice of the Application and an Interim Decision regarding this matter. I am satisfied that the individual respondent has received notice of the Application and notice of the Tribunal’s Order directing him to file a Response. It appears that the individual respondent refuses, or has chosen not to participate in these proceedings, notwithstanding notice of the implications of Rule 5.5.
[6] In the circumstances, the Tribunal orders that the individual respondent is deemed to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding.
[7] A mediation involving the applicant and the corporate respondent has been scheduled for December 9, 2009.
[8] I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 22^nd^ day of September, 2009.
“Signed by”
Alan Whyte
Vice-chair