Kanella Loutrianakis v. Claire De Lune, 2009 HRTO 737

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kanella Loutrianakis

Applicant

-and-

Claire De Lune

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: June 2, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 737

Indexed as: Loutrianakis v. Claire De Lune

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 March 11, 2009. The applicant alleges that she was a store manager in a Claire de Lune store whose employment was terminated on the basis of disability contrary to section 5 of the Code.

2On April 14, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application (the “Notice”) and delivered the Application to the respondent by regular mail at the address provided by the applicant. The Notice directed the respondent to file a response with the Tribunal no later than thirty-five (35) days from the date of the Notice. 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.

3It is now more than ten days after the date for filing the Response. The respondent has not filed its Response or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s Notice has not been returned. The applicant’s representative has confirmed that it is his understanding that the address for the respondent provided by the applicant is accurate.

4A 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 future promote compliance with the Code. Failure to file a Response may lead to orders against a respondent without their participation. The respondent‘s 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.

5If the respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, a Response must be filed by June 16, 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 may proceed without further notice to the respondent and may take any or all of the other steps set out in Rule 5.5.

6A copy of this Interim Decision will be sent to the respondent by regular mail and courier at the address provided in the Application.

7An internet search by the Tribunal indicates that Claire De Lune is a designer and retailer of decorative candles and other household items with stores across Canada. The company’s corporate head office in Montreal Quebec. The Tribunal shall also send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondent’s head office in Montreal by regular mail.

8I am not seized of this matter.