HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Julie McDonald
Applicant
-and-
Shell Canada Products and Said Chahine
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Judith Keene
Indexed as: McDonald v. Shell Canada Products
1The applicant filed an Application on September 21, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges sexual harassment by an employee of a service station. In the Application, the applicant identified two personal respondents in addition to the corporate respondent. The Application includes the date and time of the alleged incident, and identified the address of the service station, but the personal respondents were identified by first name only; respectively, “Ali” and “Said”. The text of the Application indicates that “Ali”, (identified as the individual who allegedly sexually harassed the applicant) was identified by means of a name tag that gave his first name.
2The Tribunal wrote to the applicant requesting information as to the last names and contact information of the two personal respondents. The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) asking that the Tribunal order the corporate respondent to provide the contact information for the personal respondents.
3After reviewing the Response by the corporate respondent to the Request for Order, the Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide the applicant and the Tribunal with the name and current address of Said Chahine: 2010 HRTO 1714. The corporate respondent complied with the order, and the Tribunal sent a Notice of Application to the personal respondent on September 9, 2010.
4The personal respondent was advised that a Response must be filed with the Tribunal not later than 35 days after September 9, 2010. As of the date of this Interim Decision the personal respondent has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence been returned.
5An 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 personal respondent’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.
6The corporate respondent has provided an address, phone number, and email address for the personal respondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the personal respondent by regular mail and courier.
7If the personal respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, he must file a Response by December 6, 2010, 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 the personal respondent, and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.
8I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto this 26th day of November, 2010.
“Signed by”
Judith Keene
Vice-chair