Brown v. Archer Education Group, 2010 HRTO 1395

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sheryl Brown Applicant

-and-

Archer Education Group Inc., Diamond Institute of Business and Computer Technology, Joe Gagliardi and Katharine Brooks Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: June 23, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1395 Indexed as: Brown v. Archer Education Group

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) on March 3, 2010.

2On April 22, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the personal respondent, Katharine Brooks. She was advised that a Response must be filed with the Tribunal not later than 35 days after April 22, 2010. As of the date of this Interim Decision this personal respondent has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence been returned. The remaining respondents have all filed Responses.

3An application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding. A finding that a violation of the Code has occurred 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 personal respondent’s 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 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.

4The applicant has provided an address and phone number for the personal respondent, Katharine Brooks. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the personal respondent, Katharine Brooks, by regular mail and courier to the address provided by the applicant and to Brooks Paralegal Services at another address the Tribunal has for this personal respondent

5If the personal respondent, Katharine Brooks, wishes to participate in this proceeding, she shall file a Response by July 5, 2010, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the Notice of Application. If a Response is not received, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondent and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

6I am not seized of this matter.