Lazo v. Sitel, 2010 HRTO 1353

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robin Lazo

Applicant

-and-

Sitel, Giselle Hinds and Garret Haines

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: June 15, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1353

Indexed as: Lazo v. Sitel

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 December 18, 2009.

2The applicant named as respondents his previous employer, Sitel Corporation (the “corporate respondent”) and two individuals, Giselle Hinds and Garrett Haines (the “personal respondents”). Giselle Hinds is identified as a human resources manager for the corporate respondent and Garrett Haines, a team leader for the corporate respondent and the applicant’s supervisor at all material times.

3On March 10, 2010 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application and delivered the Application to the respondents at the address provided by the applicant which is the business address of the corporate respondent.

4A single Response was filed on behalf of the corporate respondent and Giselle Hinds. The corporate respondent has indicated that Garrett Haines no longer works for the corporate respondent.

5The Tribunal relies on an applicant to provide a correct address or other contact information for a person or organization who is named as a respondent. See Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347. While the Tribunal sends a completed Application to named respondents, it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide accurate contact information. Rule 6.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”) reads, in part:

An Application accepted by the Tribunal for processing:

a) will be sent by the Tribunal to the Respondent(s), and to any trade union, occupational or professional organization identified in the Application, at the addresses provided in the Application; or

b) will not be dealt with in respect of a Respondent or a trade union, occupational or professional organization that cannot be contacted in accordance with paragraph (a) above, and the Applicant will be so advised;

6Where the Tribunal is not satisfied that a respondent has received notice of an Application, it may not deal with the Application, as provided in Rule 6.6(b), or it may require an applicant to take additional steps to satisfy the Tribunal that the contact information provided will permit effective notice to the respondent. See Guild, supra at para. 6).

7In the present case, I am not satisfied that Garrett Haines has been served the Notice of Application given the address provided by the applicant is the address of the corporate respondent where, it appears, Garrett Haines no longer works. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to make efforts to ascertain an address or contact information at which Garrett Haines can be provided with the Notice of Application, if he wishes to proceed with the Application including Garrett Haines as a respondent.

8If the applicant is unable to find a current and accurate address for Garrett Haines he may wish to request that the Tribunal issue an order pursuant to Rule 1.7(p) requiring his former employer to provide contact information for Garrett Haines. If such a request is made, the Tribunal will consider the request and determine whether it is appropriate to make such an order.

9The applicant and the two respondents who have provided a Response have indicated an interest in mediation. The Tribunal will respond to this interest once Garrett Haines’ involvement has been resolved.

10The Tribunal makes the following order:

If the applicant wishes to proceed with this Application against Garrett Haines as an individual respondent, the applicant shall, within 20 days of the date of this Interim Decision, provide a current and accurate address for Garrett Haines.

11I am not seized of this matter.