minicounsel

Procee v. Kemira Water Solutions, 2009 HRTO 1545 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

September 25, 2009

Procee v. Kemira Water Solutions, 2009 HRTO 1545

Case Summary

The applicant filed a human rights application against his supervisor and later amended it to include his employer, the corporate respondent. The individual respondent filed a timely response, but the corporate respondent did not. The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the corporate respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 and granted an extension to October 9, 2009, to file a response with an explanation for the delay.

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jeffrey Procee

Applicant

-and-

Kemira Water Solutions and Jaye Jackson

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: September 25, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1545 Indexed as: Procee v. Kemira Water Solutions

[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 March 9, 2009, naming only his supervisor, Jaye Jackson as a respondent. Subsequently, the applicant advised the Tribunal that he wished to amend his Application to include Kemira Water Solutions, his employer, as an organization respondent.

[2] Both the original Application and the correspondence containing the amendment were served on the named respondents by way of letter dated July 31, 2009. The cover letter from the Tribunal clearly indicated that Application named both Kermira Water Solutions ("the corporate respondent") and Jaye Jackson ("the individual respondent") as respondents.

[3] The two respondents were advised that their Response must be filed with the Tribunal not later than 35 days after July 31, 2009. The individual respondent filed a timely Response to the Application. However, as of the date of this Interim Decision, the corporate respondent has not filed a Response. The Tribunal's correspondence to it has not been returned.

[4] An application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding. A finding that a violation of the Code has occurred 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 corporate 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.

[5] If the corporate respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, it shall file a Response on or before October 9, 2009, together with an explanation of why its Response was not filed in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. If a Response is not received, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondent and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

[6] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 25th day of September, 2009.

"Signed by"

Naomi Overend

Vice-chair