minicounsel

Raymond Brown v. 1510610 Ontario Inc. o/a Central Welding, Joe Restoule and Peter Rich, 2010 HRTO 2206

November 4, 2010

Raymond Brown v. 1510610 Ontario Inc. o/a Central Welding, Joe Restoule and Peter Rich, 2010 HRTO 2206

Case Summary

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against a corporate respondent and two personal respondents. While the corporate respondent and one personal respondent filed a Response, the second personal respondent failed to do so. The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding party to file a Response within 10 days, warning that failure to comply could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the allegations accepted pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Raymond Brown

Applicant

-and-

1510610 Ontario Inc. o/a Central Welding, Joe Restoule and Peter Rich

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: November 4, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2206

Indexed as: Brown v. 1510610 Ontario

[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 8, 2010.

[2] On August 10, 2010 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondents. The respondents were advised that a Response must be filed with the Tribunal not later than September 14, 2010. The corporate respondent and the personal respondent Joseph Restoule have filed a Response. They advise that their Response is not filed on behalf of the personal respondent Peter Rich and that they “cannot discuss these matters” with the respondent Rich.

[3] As of the date of this Interim Decision the personal respondent Rich has not responded to the Application. The Tribunal’s correspondence with this respondent has not been returned to it.

[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 corporate respondents without their participation. The respondent Rich’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.

[5] The applicant has provided a mailing address for the respondent Rich in his Application. The Interim Decision will be sent to the respondent Rich at that address by mail and courier.

[6] If the respondent Rich wishes to participate in this proceeding, he shall file a Response with the Tribunal within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision, 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 Rich 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 4^th day of November, 2010.

”signed by”___________

Sherry Liang

Vice-chair