Vanston v. Methadrug Clinic, 2009 HRTO 610

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jennifer Vanston

Applicant

-and-

Methadrug Clinic Limited, Roxanne Taylor and Alexandra Bierman

Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

Stephanie Weber

Applicant

-and-

Methadrug Clinic Limited, Roxanne Taylor and Diana Diena

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: May 11, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 610

Indexed as: Vanston v. Methadrug Clinic

1On March 19, 2009, the applicant filed an Application under Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and family status in employment (the "Vanston Application").

2On March 27, 2009, the Tribunal sent the Vanston Application to the respondents by regular mail at the address provided by the applicant, together with a direction to respond no later than thirty-five (35) days from that date, in accordance with the Tribunal Rules. Under Rule 1.22 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, a document delivered by mail is deemed received five (5) days after the postmark date.

3It has now been more than ten (10) days since the Response was due. The Tribunal has not received a response from the respondents, nor has its correspondence been returned. This Interim Decision addresses the respondents' failure to file a Response to the Vanston Application.

4This Interim Decision also addresses a Request for Order During Proceedings, Form 10, filed by Stephanie Weber who is an applicant in File 2008-00132-I. Ms. Weber filed an Application against Methadrug Clinic Limited, Roxanne Taylor, Alexandra Bierman and Dani Diena (the "Weber Application"). She requested that the Weber Application be consolidated or heard together with the Vanston Application. Ms. Vanston filed a Response to a Request for an Order (Form 11) agreeing that the two Applications be consolidated or heard together. The respondents to the Weber Application have not filed a Response to a Request for an Order (Form 11) addressing this Request.

Failure to File Response

5A Tribunal application is a legal proceeding which, if a violation of the Code is found, 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 respondents' attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, which reads as follows:

5.5 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 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.

6The applicant has provided an address and phone number for the respondents. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondents in the Vanstone Application by regular mail, courier and fax.

7If the respondents wish to participate in this proceeding, they shall file a Response by May 15, 2009, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the March 27, 2009 Notice. If a Response is not received, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondents and may take any or all of the steps out in Rule 5.5.

Hearing the Weber and Vanston Applications Together

8The Tribunal encloses with this Interim Decision the Request for Order filed in the Weber Application. The respondents to the Vanston Application are directed to file a Response to a Request for an Order (Form 11) together with their Response to the Application by May 15, 2009. If a Response to a Request for an Order is not received by that date, in addition to any determination as set out in paragraph 7 above, the Tribunal will determine whether the Weber Application and the Vanston Application should be consolidated or heard together.

9I am not seized of this matter.