Dorohoi v. Teletech Canada, 2009 HRTO 803

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alexandru Dorohoi

Applicant

-and-

Teletech Canada Inc.

Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Michael Gottheil

Date: June 10, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 803

Indexed as: Dorohoi v. Teletech Canada

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin and reprisal.

2The Application was filed on September 18, 2008. Notwithstanding having been served with the Application, and two Interim Decisions directing that a Response be filed, the respondent did not file a Response.

3By Interim Decision dated May 11, 2009, 2009 HRTO 609 (the “May 2009 decision”), the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all the allegations set out in the Application, and to have waived its right to participate in these proceedings. The Tribunal ordered that the in-person hearing originally scheduled for June 23 and 24, 2009 was cancelled, and the Tribunal would hold a teleconference on June 23, 2009 to hear oral submissions from the applicant on any additional facts and arguments in support of his claim against the respondent.

4On June 1, 2009 the respondent wrote to the Tribunal asking that the teleconference be rescheduled. The Tribunal declined the request and re-sent the May 2009 decision to the respondent.

5On June 4, 2009, a representative for the respondent sent correspondence acknowledging that the respondent had previously failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules and directions. The letter explained that the previous representative, who is no longer employed by the respondent, had experienced a serious family crisis over the period in which the respondent was directed to file its Response. The new representative indicated that a completed Response, dated December 22, 2008, was found on the desk of the former representative. The respondent requested the Tribunal consider the December 22, 2008 Response.

6The Tribunal has no record of receiving a Response dated December 22, 2008, and the respondent has not provided any confirmation that it was sent. In addition, the respondent did not provide the Tribunal with notice of change of its representative. That being said, it does appear that the April 7, 2009 Case Assessment Direction, and the May 2009 decision, which were both sent to the respondent’s former representative, may not have come to the attention of the respondent in a timely way.

7In the circumstances, the Tribunal is not prepared to decide whether to consider the respondent’s Response, or to determine whether and to what extent the respondent may participate in these proceedings, without receiving additional submissions from the parties. Therefore, the Tribunal makes the following orders:

a. Should the respondent wish to participate, it must, no later than June 16, 2009, deliver to the applicant’s counsel, and file with the Tribunal, full submissions setting out its position on the extent of its right to participate in these proceedings. The submissions must include an explanation as to why it failed to file its Response earlier, as required by the Rules and as directed by the Tribunal; any facts upon which it relies; and legal argument in support of its proposed right to participate.

b. The applicant is directed to deliver to the respondent, and file with the Tribunal, no later than June 22, 2009, response submissions to the submissions provided by the respondent as set out above.

c. At the commencement of the teleconference on June 23, 2009, the Tribunal will hear oral submissions on whether the Tribunal should accept the respondent’s December 22, 2008 Response, and whether and to what extent the respondent should be permitted to participate in these proceedings.

8If the Tribunal decides that it will permit the respondent to participate, it will set a new time frame for the resolution of this case. If the Tribunal determines that it is not appropriate to reverse its orders as set out in the May 2009 decision, it will proceed as previously ordered.