Alexandru Dorohoi v. Teletech Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 927

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 29, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 927

Indexed as: Dorohoi v. Teletech

Appearances by

Alexandru Dorohoi, Applicant ) Amy Britton-Cox, Counsel

Teletech Canada Inc., Respondent ) Ashley L. Copenhaver, Counsel

1This Interim Decision is further to Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 803 (the “June 10, 2009 decision”), and a teleconference hearing held on June 23, 2009.

2In the June 10, 2009 decision, I directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the respondent should be permitted to participate in these proceedings, having previously been found to be in default for failing to file a Response as required by the Rules, and as directed on two separate occasions. On the June 23, 2009 teleconference, I heard the parties’ submissions on the issue.

3The respondent asserts that its failure to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules and directions over a seven-month period was as a result of the extenuating personal circumstances of its former paralegal, who was responsible for dealing with this case. The respondent further states that, once the paralegal left its employ, there was confusion since considerable work had been left uncompleted. Counsel for the respondent states that she is the only employment lawyer for the respondent’s entire 22,000 employee operation, and as a result was unable to deal with matters in a timely way once the former paralegal left.

4The applicant argues that while he is sympathetic with the personal circumstances faced by the respondent’s former paralegal, the respondent is a large multinational corporate employer, and has a responsibility to deal with its legal obligations, such as responding to a human rights application, in a timely way. The applicant asserts the respondent consistently, and over a number of months, failed to take the processes under the Code and the Tribunal’s Rules seriously. The applicant argues that his Application was filed on September 18, 2008, and the delay has caused substantial and real prejudice. The applicant argues the Tribunal should not reverse its decision, which 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.

Decision

5I have considerable difficulty with the respondent’s position. Apart from the general assertion that its former paralegal experienced serious family crisis at some point in late 2008, it provides no particulars of when the paralegal was absent from work, and how or why her absence prevented someone else at the respondent company from filing a Response. It provides no explanation about why it failed to file a Response when initially served with the Application, nor why it did not comply with the directions set out in the several Tribunal decisions. It provides no proof of delivery of the Response it now says it filed in December 2008, and why in an April 20, 2009 letter, it sought an extension to file a Response, if it had already filed one.

6Having said this, proceeding in the absence of a party is an extremely serious step. I do not feel I can decide the respondent’s request based on the submissions received to date. I require oral testimony from a witness who can explain and provide details of the failure of the respondent to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules and directions over a seven-month period. As a result, I make the following order:

a. No later than July 15, 2009, the respondent shall provide one or more sworn statements from a person or persons with direct knowledge of how the respondent handled this Application, and why the respondent failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules and each direction issued by the Tribunal.

b. After receiving the sworn statements, the Tribunal will schedule an in-person hearing to permit the applicant the opportunity to cross-examine on the statements.

7During the teleconference, the parties agreed to participate in mediation. The respondent agreed to ensure that counsel retained would be available on the date scheduled for a mediation. The Registrar will schedule a mediation for July 16, 2009 in North Bay and will advise the parties of the location.