Begley v. Eratostene, 2009 HRTO 235

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dermot Begley

Applicant

-and-

Patrick Eratostene, Michael Bolahood and Tim Fenton

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: March 4, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 235

Indexed as: Begley v. Eratostene

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 December 16, 2008, alleging discrimination in employment against three individual respondents while employed by his former employer. On January 8, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application and delivered the Application to the respondents by regular mail at the address provided by the applicant which appears to be an address for his former employer.

2On February 10, 2009, the respondents, Patrick Eratostene and Michael Bolahood, filed a Response to the Application. The Response indicated that the respondent, Tim Fenton, was no longer employed by the applicant’s former employer. The applicant advised the Tribunal that he only has a telephone number and no current address for Tim Fenton.

3As explained by the Tribunal in Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347, the Tribunal relies on an applicant to provide a correct address or other contact information for a person or organization who is named as a respondent. While the Tribunal sends a completed Application to the respondent, it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide accurate contact information. Rule 6.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”) reads, in part:

An Application accepted by the Tribunal for processing:

a) will be sent by the Tribunal to the Respondent(s), and to any trade union, occupational or professional organization identified in the Application, at the addresses provided in the Application; or

b) will not be dealt with in respect of a Respondent or a trade union, occupational or professional organization that cannot be contacted in accordance with paragraph (a) above, and the Applicant will be so advised;

4Where the Tribunal is not satisfied that a respondent has received notice of an Application, it may not deal with the Application, as provided in Rule 6.6(b), or it may require an applicant to take additional steps to satisfy the Tribunal that the contact information provided will permit effective notice to the respondent. (see Guild, supra at para. 6)

5In the present case, the Notice of Application was mailed to the respondent, Tim Fenton, at the address provided by the applicant and was not returned. The address provided by the applicant appears to be an address for his former employer. The other respondents have indicated that Tim Fenton is no longer employed by the applicant’s former employer. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that Tim Fenton has received notice of the Application. The applicant will be required to make efforts to ascertain an address or contact information at which Tim Fenton can be provided with the Notice of Application, if he wishes to proceed with the Application including Tim Fenton as a respondent.

6Although the applicant has not named his former employer as a respondent, his former employer may have contact information for Tim Fenton. If the applicant is unable to find a current and accurate address for Tim Fenton, he may wish to request that the Tribunal issue an order pursuant to Rule 1.7(p) requiring his former employer to provide contact information for Tim Fenton. If such a request were made, the Tribunal would consider the request and determine whether it was appropriate to make such an order.

7The Tribunal makes the following order:

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

b. As the applicant and the two respondents who provided a Response to the Application have agreed to mediation, the Registrar will schedule a mediation date for this matter.

8I am not seized of this matter.