minicounsel

Rodrigues v. United Cleaning Services Limited, 2010 HRTO 1565 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

July 19, 2010

Rodrigues v. United Cleaning Services Limited, 2010 HRTO 1565

Case Summary

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. The respondents failed to file a Response by the initial deadline and subsequently missed an extended deadline requested by their Legal Department. The Tribunal issued an interim decision granting the respondents a final 14 days to file a Response and explain the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the allegations accepted under Rule 5.5.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Pedro Rodrigues

Applicant

-and-

United Cleaning Services Limited, Karolina Zajac and Frank Catney

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: July 19, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1565

Indexed as: Rodrigues v. United Cleaning Services Limited

[1] The 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 24, 2010, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability.

[2] On May 10, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondents. The respondents were advised that a Response (Form 2) must be filed with the Tribunal not later than 35 days from May 10, 2010. On June 15, 2010, a representative of the organizational respondent’s Legal Department wrote to the Tribunal seeking an extension of time to file a Response. The Tribunal granted the respondents an extension of time until June 25, 2010 to file their Response with the Tribunal.

[3] As of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondents have not filed a Response, nor further corresponded or communicated with the Tribunal.

[4] An 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 organizational respondents without their participation. The respondents’ 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.

[5] The applicant has provided an address and fax number for the respondents. The Tribunal also has the email address of the contact person from the organizational respondent’s Legal Department. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondents by regular mail, fax, and email.

[6] If the respondents wish to participate in this proceeding, they shall file a Response within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the June 25, 2010 deadline. If a Response is not received, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondents and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

[7] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 19^th day of July, 2010.

“signed by”

Ena Chadha

Vice-chair