Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Columbia Washington
Applicant
-and-
Student Federation of the University of Ottawa, Andre Brazeau, Sylvia Lewis-Havard and Aurelien Leftick
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim
Indexed as: Washington v. Student Federation of the University of Ottawa
1This Application was filed June 16, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondents have not filed a Response (Form TR-2).
2The Tribunal issued a previous Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1578 on September 30, 2009, noting the failure to file Responses to the Application, and directing the respondents to file them. To date, none of the respondents have filed a Response. The Tribunal also directed the institutional respondent to provide the last known contact information for the personal respondents. This information has also not been provided.
3This Interim Decision provides case assessment directions to the applicant in order that the Tribunal may deal with the Application in a fair, just and expeditious manner.
CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF THE RESPONDENTS TO COMPLY WITH THE TRIBUNAL’S RULES
4The Tribunal sent its Confirmation of Receipt of an Application and the prior Interim Decision to the institutional respondent and this material has not been returned. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the institutional respondent has received notice.
5Pursuant to Rule 3.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules for Transitional Applications under Section 53(3) and 53(5) of the Human Rights Code (the “Rules”), 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, 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; and,
d) decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal.
6In a similar case, Kearns v. 1327827 Ontario, 2009 HRTO 457, where the respondent failed to file a Response despite having received the Notice of Application, and despite an interim “no response” decision having been issued, the Tribunal noted that in all but the rarest of cases, the Tribunal will deem the respondent to have waived its right to participate and deem the respondent to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application.
7With reference to the principles articulated in Kearns v. 1327827 Ontario, 2009 HRTO 457, and in Burns v. Employer’s Choice Staffing of Canada, 2008 HRTO 363, I find that it is appropriate in this case to deem the institutional respondent to have accepted all of the facts alleged in the Application, and to have waived any right to participate in these proceedings.
8I will defer making a final ruling on the Application until after the applicant has had the opportunity to provide additional materials and to make oral submissions.
DIRECTIONS REGARDING PERSONAL RESPONDENTS
9It is not clear to me that the personal respondents have been given notice of these proceedings, as the applicant does not have contact information for them and the institutional respondent has not provided any information.
10The onus rests with the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the personal respondents have been given a copy of the Application or to provide a current contact address so that the Tribunal may give notice to them.
2
11The applicant will be provided with an additional 30 days to locate the personal respondents, failing which they will be removed from these proceedings.
DIRECTIONS REGARDING INSTITUTIONAL RESPONDENT
12In my view, the most fair, just and expeditious way to deal with this Application is to schedule a hearing. At the hearing, the applicant need not present evidence on the facts already set out in her Application. Since I have found that the institutional respondent is deemed to have accepted the facts and allegations set out in the Application, I am prepared to treat those facts as uncontradicted evidence.
13For the reasons set out above, I make the following order:
a. The institutional respondent is deemed to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application;
b. The institutional respondent is deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation in these proceedings; and
c. No later than two weeks before the date set for the hearing, the applicant may submit any additional documents she wishes the Tribunal to consider in deciding this Application.
14The Registrar-Transition will schedule a half-day hearing in this matter.
15I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of December, 2009.
“Signed By”
Kaye Joachim
Alternate Chair
3