Martinez v. Dollarama L.P., 2010 HRTO 2118

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dailyn Martinez

Applicant

-and-

Dollarama L.P. and Deolall Singh

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: October 20, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2118

Indexed as: Martinez v. Dollarama L.P.

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on September 4, 2009, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation or advances. She named two organizational respondents, Dollarama and Dollarama Capital Corporation, and an individual respondent, Deolall Singh.

2The organizational respondent responded and identified its legal name as Dollarama L.P. The style of cause is amended accordingly.

3Mr. Singh, the individual respondent, has not provided a Response. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to direct the applicant to provide further information with respect to contact information for him.

4On June 21, 2010, the Tribunal delivered the Application to the respondents by way of regular mail at the address provided by the applicant, which appears to be a business address for the organizational respondent. The organizational respondent has confirmed that the individual respondent is no longer employed by it.

5On September 10, 2010, the Tribunal sent the organizational respondent’s Response to the applicant and requested that she provide by September 20, 2010 an address for the individual respondent so that the Tribunal could serve him with the Application. The applicant has not responded.

6As explained by the Tribunal in Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347, the Tribunal relies on applicants to provide a correct address for respondents named in their applications.

7Rule 6.6(b) provides that the Tribunal will not deal with an application in respect of a respondent who cannot be contacted at the contact information provided by the applicant. As such, where the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that a respondent has received notice of an application, it may not deal with the application or may require an applicant to take additional steps to satisfy the Tribunal that the contact information provided will permit effective notice to the respondent. Generally, in such cases, the applicant will be required to explain what efforts were undertaken to find and verify a current address for the respondent, and explain why this contact information is believed to be the “most recent address”, see Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, supra, and Begley v. Eratostene, 2009 HRTO 235.

8In the present case, the Notice of Application was mailed to the personal respondent at the organizational respondent’s address. Although these materials were not returned, the organizational respondent has confirmed in its Response that the individual respondent is no longer employed by it, and that its Response was filed solely on behalf of the corporate entity.

9In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that Deolall Singh has received notice of the Application. If the applicant wishes to proceed with her Application against Mr. Singh as a respondent, then she must provide current contact information for him.

10If the applicant is unable to find a current and accurate address for Mr. Singh, the applicant may wish to request that the Tribunal issue an order pursuant to Rule 1.7(p) requiring Mr. Singh’s former employer, the organizational respondent, to provide contact information for him, and the Tribunal would consider whether it is appropriate to make such an order.

11The Tribunal makes the following order:

a. If the applicant wishes to proceed against Deolall Singh as an individual respondent, the applicant shall, within 20 days of the date of this Interim Decision, provide a current and accurate address for him;

b. As the applicant and the organizational respondent have agreed to mediation, the Registrar will schedule a mediation date for this matter.

12I am not seized of this matter.