HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Arthur Martin
Applicant
-and-
Trailmobile Canada Limited, John Pacheco
and Ivan Sustark
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
Date: May 4, 2009
Citation: 2009 HRTO 553
Indexed as: Martin v. Trailmobile Canada
[1] The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on March 1, 2009. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ failure to file a Response to the Application.
[2] On March 5, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application and delivered the Application to the respondents by regular mail at the addresses provided by the applicant. The Notice directed the respondents to file a Response with the Tribunal no later than thirty-five (35) days from the date of the Notice.
[3] The Notice that was sent to the organization respondent was returned to the Tribunal on March 17, 2009 with a Canada Post label stating “return to sender” and a line through the address and the word “unknown” written beside it. The Notice was re-sent to an alternate address, which was provided by the applicant, and has not been returned to the Tribunal. The Notices that were sent to the individual respondents have also not been returned to the Tribunal.
[4] Rule 1.22 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure confirms that a document delivered by mail is deemed received five days after the postmark date. It is now more than ten days after the date for filing the Response. The respondents have not filed a Response, or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s Notice has not been returned.
[5] A Tribunal application is a legal proceeding. If a violation of the Code is found the Tribunal may order a respondent to make monetary compensation or other forms of restitution to the applicant and to take steps to promote future compliance with the Code. Failure to file a Response may lead to orders against a respondent without their participation. The respondents’ attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules 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.
[6] The applicant has provided a postal address for the organization respondent and a postal address and fax number for the individual respondents. The Tribunal shall therefore send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondents by regular mail, courier and fax. I have noted that the postal addresses for the organization respondent and the individual respondents have the same postal code (L5T 2S9), but a slightly different street number (455 Gibraltar Drive and 454 Gibraltar Drive). The courier service shall be instructed to deliver the Interim Decision to the other address if one address does not exist or is incorrect.
[7] If the respondents wish to participate in this proceeding, a Response must be filed by May 15, 2009 together with an explanation why it was not filed in accordance with the deadline contained in the Notice of Application. If the Response is not received by this date, the Tribunal shall proceed without further notice to the respondents, and may take any or all of the other steps set out in Rule 5.5.
[8] I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of May, 2009.
“Signed By”
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair