Basic v. Extreme Fitness, 2009 HRTO 2134

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zvonimir Basic Applicant

• and -

Extreme Fitness Inc. and Fahad Hashim Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: December 9, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2134 Indexed as: Basic v. Extreme Fitness

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), on September 4, 2009, alleging discrimination in contracts on the basis of disability against an organizational respondent, Extreme Fitness Inc., and an individual respondent, Fahad Hashim. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to direct the applicant to provide further information with respect to contact information for the individual respondent.

2On September 11, 2009, the Tribunal delivered the Application and an Interim Decision to both respondents by way of regular mail at the address provided by the applicant, which appears to be the business address for the organizational respondent. A Response was received from the organizational respondent only. No Response has been received from the individual respondent. The organizational respondent has confirmed that the individual respondent is no longer employed by it.

3On November 17, 2009, the Tribunal communicated with the applicant and enquired whether the applicant wished to proceed against the individual respondent and, if so, whether the applicant had an alternate address for the individual respondent. The applicant replied on the same day and advised that he did not have an alternate address for the individual respondent and "...frankly, this is not my problem ... I leave it in the Tribunal's hands to find Mr. Fahad Hashim."

4As explained by the Tribunal in Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347, while the Tribunal delivers completed applications to respondents, it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide accurate contact information and the Tribunal relies on applicants to provide a correct address for respondents named in their applications.

5Rule 6.6(b) provides that the Tribunal will not deal with an application in respect of a respondent who cannot be contacted at the contact information provided by the applicant. As such, where the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that a respondent has received notice of an application, it may not deal with the application or may require an applicant to take additional steps to satisfy the Tribunal that the contact information provided will permit effective notice to the respondent. Generally, in such cases, the applicant will be required to explain what efforts were undertaken to find and verify a current address for the respondent, and explain why this contact information is believed to be the "most recent address", see Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, supra, and Begley v. Eratostene, 2009 HRTO 235.

6In the present case, the Notice of Application, along with an Interim Decision, were mailed to the personal respondent at the organizational respondent's address (as provided by the applicant). Although these materials were not returned, the organizational respondent has subsequently confirmed that the individual respondent is no longer employed by it and that its Response was filed solely on behalf of the corporate entity.

7In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that Fahad Hashim has received notice of the Application. The applicant will be required to make efforts to ascertain an address or contact information at which Fahad Hashim can be provided with the Notice of Application, if the applicant wishes to proceed with the Application including Fahad Hashim as a respondent. Consequently, the Tribunal directs the applicant to provide the most current and complete contact information for the individual respondent.

8If the applicant is unable to find a current and accurate address for Fahad Hashim, the applicant may wish to request that the Tribunal issue an order pursuant to Rule 1.7(p) requiring Fahad Hashim's former employer, the organizational respondent, to provide contact information for Fahad Hashim. If such a request were made, the Tribunal would consider the request and determine whether it was appropriate to make such an order.

9The Tribunal makes the following order:

a. If the applicant wishes to proceed with this Application including Fahad Hashim as an individual respondent, the applicant shall, within 20 days of the date of this Interim Decision, provide a current and accurate address for Fahad Hashim and explain the steps he has taken to ensure that the address is current and accurate;

b. As the applicant and the organizational respondent have agreed to mediation, the Registrar will schedule a mediation date for this matter.

10I am not seized of this matter.