Mahesparan v. Kee, 2009 HRTO 1675

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Kothanayake Mahesparan Applicant

-and-

Debbie Kee, Kevin Hui and Teddianne Beagan Respondents

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1356 Intervenor

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: October 14, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1675 Indexed as: Mahesparan v. Kee

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-19, as amended (the “Code”), on January 19, 2009, alleging discrimination in employment against three individual respondents.

CORRECT RESPONDENT NAME

2Counsel for two personal respondents has notified the Tribunal that the name for respondent Kevin Yui is incorrectly spelled on the Application and the correct spelling of the name is Kevin Hui. Accordingly, the Tribunal amends the style of cause to reflect the correct spelling of Kevin Hui’s surname.

BACKGROUND

3On February 10, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application and delivered the Application to the respondents. Responses were received from Debbie Kee and Kevin Hui; however, no response has been received from Teddianne Beagan. On June 10, 2009, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 814, which was forwarded to the parties by courier delivery. In that Interim Decision, the Tribunal directed personal respondent Beagan to file a Response no later than June 19, 2009. Although the Interim Decision was sent to personal respondent Beagan at the address provided by the applicant, the courier package was returned marked as “undeliverable” due to an incomplete address.

4On July 15, 2009, the Tribunal issued another Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1050, directing the applicant to provide a current, complete and accurate address for personal respondent Beagan. The applicant provided this information on July 17, 2009. On July 21, 2009, the Tribunal delivered the Application to respondent Beagan. On August 26, 2009, respondent Beagan wrote to the Tribunal and requested an extension of time to respond to the Application. The Tribunal granted the request for an extension of time and directed respondent Beagan to file a Response no later than September 8, 2009.

DECISION

5As of the date of this Interim Decision, no Response has been received from respondent Beagan.

6An 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 respondent’s attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 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.

7If the personal respondent Beagan wishes to participate in this proceeding, then she is required to file a Response by October 30, 2009, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the Notice of Application. If a Response is not received, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to this respondent and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

8I am not seized.