Garrie v. Janus Joan, 2010 HRTO 1792

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Terri-Lynn Garrie

Applicant

-and-

Janus Joan Inc. and Stacey Szuch

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: September 1, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1792

Indexed as: Garrie v. Janus Joan

INTRODUCTION

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ ongoing failure to file a Response to the Application, and to provide directions to the applicant with respect to disposing of her Application.

BACKGROUND

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on November 12, 2009, which alleged that the respondents discriminated against her with respect to employment because of her disability.

3On February 12, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application and delivered the Application to the respondents by regular mail at the address provided by the applicant. The Notice directed the respondents to file a Response with the Tribunal no later than thirty-five (35) days from the date of the Notice. The Notice also provided the following warning:

If you fail to respond to the Application, the Tribunal may deem you to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application, proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to you, deem you to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding and decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal.

4On March 16, 2010, the individual respondent, Stacey Szuch, telephoned the Tribunal and told a staff person that Janus Joan Inc. is closed. The staff person informed Ms. Szuch that she should send a letter with supporting documentation to the Tribunal showing that Janus Joan Inc. is closed.

5On March 22, 2010, the Tribunal received an unsigned letter with no letterhead or return address, which stated:

Janus Joan Inc. closed January 31, 2010 including Payroll & GST accounts etc. discontinued (ACSES). Due to legalities, there is no authority to acknowledge this File dated February 12, 2010.

There was no supporting documentation attached to the letter.

6On April 14, 2010, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 820, and delivered it to the respondents by regular mail and courier. The Interim Decision had the following warning:

[5] It is now more than five days after the date for filing the Response. The respondents have not filed a Response, and it appears from the letter that the Tribunal received that they do not intend to file a Response. The respondents should be aware that there are implications for failing to file a Response.

[6] A Tribunal Application is a legal proceeding. If a violation of the Code is found the Tribunal may order the respondents to provide monetary compensation or other forms of restitution to the applicant and to take steps to promote future compliance with the Code. Failure to file a Response may lead to orders against the respondents without their participation. The respondents’ attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules which reads as follows:

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.

[7] If the respondents wish to participate in this proceeding, a Response must be filed by April 21, 2010 together with an explanation why it was not filed in accordance with the deadline contained in the Notice of Application. If the Response is not received by this date, the Tribunal shall proceed without further notice to the respondents, and may take any or all of the other steps set out in Rule 5.5.

7All the packages sent to the respondents were returned to the Tribunal. The tracking record from the courier company indicates that the packages were successfully delivered to “ROBERT at RECEPTION of JANUS JOAN”, but later refused and returned to the courier company.

8On April 23, 2010, the Tribunal received a letter with photographs from the applicant’s father. The letter stated that the organization respondent is still in business at the same address, but moved to a different part of the building. The attached photographs purportedly show the organization respondent’s banners (“Janus Joan Inc.”) on various sides of the buildings, open shipping and receiving bays, a shipping truck, and the individual respondent’s car.

CONSEQUENCE OF RESPONDENTS’ FAILURE TO FILE A RESPONSE AND COMPLY WITH TRIBUNAL’S RULES AND DIRECTIONS

9In Kearns v. 1327827 Ontario, 2009 HRTO 457, the Tribunal set out the consequence for failing to file a Response and comply with the Tribunal’s Rules and directions:

[11] The Code is an important public statute which enshrines our most basic and fundamental rights and freedoms. The enforcement procedures in the Code are equally important, since without an effective means of claiming a violation of a right, and seeking redress where a violation is found, those fundamental human rights would have little meaning.

[12] The procedures established by the Tribunal’s Rules provide a mechanism to resolve disputes arising under the Code fairly and expeditiously. An individual who believes his or her rights have been infringed may bring an Application. That Application must be complete and set out the allegations which, in the applicant’s view, constitute a violation of the Code. Before serving an Application on the person or organization named as a respondent, the Tribunal will review the Application to ensure that it is complete and that it appears to be within the jurisdiction of the Code.

[13] Once served with an Application, if the respondent wishes to participate and defend against the claim made by the applicant, the respondent has only to file a Response. The Tribunal provides a respondent with clear notice of what is required, and has prepared a Guide which assists a respondent in completing its Response. The Response also provides a respondent with an opportunity to indicate which facts or allegations in the Application are agreed to, and which are disputed.

[14] A respondent who refuses, or chooses not to file a Response should not be able to frustrate the objects of the Code, and the applicant’s right to assert a claim and seek a timely determination of that claim. Section 40 of the Code requires the Tribunal to dispose of Applications in a way which will provide for “a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the application.” Where no Response is filed, in order to fulfill this statutory mandate, the Tribunal will proceed to determine the Application in the absence of the respondent. In all but the rarest of cases, the Tribunal will deem the respondent to have waived its right to participate pursuant to Rule 5.5(c) and deem the respondent to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application pursuant to Rule 5.5(a).

10Based on the above sequence of events, I am satisfied that the respondents received notice of the Application, but are evading service of further correspondence from the Tribunal, and are refusing or choosing not to participate in this proceeding.

11The consequence of the respondents’ failure to file a Response and comply with the Tribunal’s Rules and directions is that the Tribunal deems them to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application, and to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in this proceeding.

DIRECTIONS

12Subsection 43(2) of the Code and Rule 3.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules provide that an Application that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall not be finally disposed of without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions. Accordingly, unless the applicant waives her right to make oral submissions, the Tribunal shall schedule a one-day hearing.

13The applicant is directed to address the following in any further written or oral submissions that she decides to make.

14The onus is on the applicant to establish on a balance of probabilities that a violation of the Code has occurred. The Tribunal’s decision to deem the respondents to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application does not mean that findings of discrimination have been or will be made. In Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, 1989 CanLII 2 (S.C.C.), the Supreme Court of Canada defined discrimination as follows:

Discrimination is a distinction which, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, has an effect which imposes disadvantages not imposed upon others or which withholds or limits access to advantages available to other members of society.

15Based on my review, the Application raises the following issues with respect to liability:

(a) Did the respondents discriminate against the applicant, who has developmental disabilities, by classifying her as a trainee and paying her less than employees who did not have developmental disabilities?

(b) Did the respondents discriminate against the applicant when they refused to give her an electronic pass card?

(c) Did the respondents discriminate against the applicant when they refused to pay her overtime on October 9, 2009?

(d) Did the respondents discriminate against the applicant when they terminated her employment on November 26, 2009?

16The Tribunal’s remedial powers are set out in subsection 45.2 of the Code, which provides:

(1) On an application under section 34, the Tribunal may make one or more of the following orders if the Tribunal determines that a party to the application has infringed a right under Part I of another party to the application:

1. An order directing the party who infringed the right to pay monetary compensation to the party whose right was infringed for loss arising out of the infringement, including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

2. An order directing the party who infringed the right to make restitution to the party whose right was infringed, other than through monetary compensation, for loss arising out of the infringement, including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

3. An order directing any party to the application to do anything that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the party ought to do to promote compliance with this Act.

(2) For greater certainty, an order under paragraph 3 of subsection (1),

(a) may direct a person to do anything with respect to future practices; and

(b) may be made even if no order under that paragraph was requested.

17Based on my review, the Application raises the following issues with respect to remedy:

(a) Is the applicant entitled to compensation for loss of income for the difference between her pay and the pay of employees who did not have developmental disabilities?

(b) Is the applicant entitled to compensation for loss of income incurred as a result of the respondents’ termination of her employment?

(c) Is the applicant entitled to compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect resulting from the discrimination?

(d) Should the Tribunal direct the respondents to do anything else to promote compliance with the Code?

18The Ontario Court of Appeal has held that the purpose of the compensation for loss of income is to restore the applicant as far as is reasonably possible to the position that the applicant would have been in had the discriminatory act not occurred: Impact Interiors Inc. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) (1998), 1998 CanLII 17685 (ON CA), 35 C.H.R.R. D/477 (Ont. C.A.); Piazza v. Airport Taxi Cab (Malton) Assn. (1989), 1989 CanLII 4071 (ON CA), 10 C.H.R.R. D/6347 (Ont. C.A.).

19With respect to compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, the Divisional Court has held that humiliation, hurt feelings, the loss of self-respect, dignity and confidence by the applicant, the experience of victimization, the vulnerability of the applicant; and the seriousness of the offensive treatment are among the factors to be considered in setting the amount of damages: ADGA Group Consultants Inc. v. Lane, 2008 CanLII 39605 (ON S.C.D.C.)

ORDER

20The Tribunal therefore makes the following orders:

(a) The respondents are deemed to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application.

(b) The respondents are deemed to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in this proceeding.

(c) Within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant shall file any further written submissions and/or documents that she wants the Tribunal to consider in deciding this Application, and inform the Tribunal if she wants to attend a hearing.

(d) If the applicant informs the Tribunal that she does not want to attend a hearing, the Tribunal will proceed to finally determine the Application, including deciding the appropriate remedy, based on the materials before the Tribunal that the applicant has filed.

(e) If the applicant wants to attend a hearing, the Tribunal’s Registrar will schedule a one-day hearing.

21I am not seized of this matter.