HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Elaine Chedore
Applicant
-and-
McBoyco Limited, McDonald’s (Brock Location),
Matthew Staples and Mike Michlik
Respondents
INTERIM decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Chedore v. McBoyco
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 8, 2010, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of age.
2On May 14, 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. The packages sent to the individual respondents were returned unopened and therefore re-delivered.
3The respondent McBoyco Limited filed a Response with the Tribunal advising that it was the applicant’s predecessor employer and that its assets were sold to Dendres Corporation. The respondent McBoyco Limited further advised the individual respondents were now in the employ of Dendres Corporation.
4On June 14, 2010, the respondent Michlik, as General Manager of Dendres Corporation, wrote to the Tribunal seeking an extension of time to file a Response. The Tribunal granted respondent Michlik an extension of time until June 28, 2010 to file a Response with the Tribunal. In his request for an extension of time to file a Response, respondent Michlik provided the Tribunal with his correct postal address at Dendres Corporation and his email address. As of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent Michlik has not filed a Response, nor further corresponded or communicated with the Tribunal.
5On July 19, 2010, the Tribunal received a Response from the individual respondent Matthew Staples. While the respondent Staples’s Response initially indicated that he was filing on behalf of the respondent McBoyco Limited, he subsequently confirmed that his Response was filed on his own behalf only.
6No Response has been received from the respondent McDonald’s (Brock Location) and the Tribunal’s correspondence sent to this respondent has not been returned.
DECISION
7An 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 respondent Michlik’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.
8The Tribunal notes clarification is required with respect to which party the various respondents are filing Responses on behalf of; specifically, have they filed on their own individual behalf or also on behalf of the organization respondents. The Tribunal further notes there an issue about whether McDonald’s (Brock Location) is properly named in light of the information provided by the respondent McBoyco Limited and the respondent Michlik’s earlier correspondence with the Tribunal as General Manager of Dendres Corporation.
9As such, the Tribunal makes the following Orders:
(i) The Interim Decision and the Responses of McBoyco Limited and Staples will be sent to those respondents by courier. The respondent McBoyco Limited is directed to identify on whose behalf its Response is made and copy that information to all other parties and file it with the Tribunal no later than 10 days from the date of the Interim Decision.
(ii) The Interim Decision will be sent to the respondent Michlik by email and courier. All the Responses will also be sent to the respondent Michlik by courier. He is directed to provide the proper legal name of McDonald’s (Brock Location) to the Tribunal and all parties to the Application. If the respondent Michlik wishes to participate in this proceeding, he shall file a Response with the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, clearly identifying on whose behalf the Response is made and providing an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance June 28, 2010 deadline. If a Response is not received, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondent Michlik and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.
10I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of July, 2010.
”signed by”_______________
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair