Laura Mayer v. Nepean Rideau & Osgoode Community Resource Centre and Howard Kravitz, 2010 HRTO 2472

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Laura Mayer Applicant

• and -

Nepean Rideau & Osgoode Community Resource Centre and Howard Kravitz Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: December 14, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2472 Indexed as: Mayor v. Nepean Rideau & Osgoode Community Resource Centre and Howard Kravitz

1The applicant filed this Application on September 3, 2010, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment and services, goods and facilities on the basis of disability and sex.

2On October 26, 2010, the Tribunal mailed the Application to both respondents at the address provided by the applicant, which appears to be the business address for the organizational respondent.

3On November 8, 2010, the package addressed to Howard Kravitz (the “individual respondent”) containing the individual respondent’s copy of the Application was returned to the Tribunal. The Tribunal contacted the applicant and informed the applicant that the individual respondent’s package was returned. The applicant did not provide an alternate address.

4On November 25, 2010, a Response was received from the organizational respondent only. The organizational respondent has confirmed that the individual respondent is no longer employed by it and that it does not represent the individual respondent.

5On November 26, 29, and 30, 2010, the Tribunal attempted to communicate with the applicant in order to enquire whether the applicant wished to proceed against the individual respondent and, if so, whether the applicant had an alternate address for the individual respondent. The Tribunal was unsuccessful at reaching the applicant.

6As noted in Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347, while the Tribunal delivers completed applications to respondents, it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide accurate contact information and 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 individual respondent at the organizational respondent’s address (as provided by the applicant) and these materials were eventually returned unopened. The organizational respondent has subsequently confirmed 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 the individual respondent, Howard Kravitz, has received notice of the Application. If the applicant wishes to proceed with the Application including Howard Kravitz as an individual respondent, the applicant will be required to make efforts to ascertain an address or contact information at which Howard Kravitz can be provided with the Notice of Application.

10Consequently, the Tribunal directs that if the applicant wishes to proceed with this Application including Howard Kravitz as an individual respondent, the applicant shall, within 20 days of the date of this Interim Decision, provide a current and accurate address for Howard Kravitz and explain the steps taken to ensure that the address is current and accurate.

11If, given the applicant’s explanation, the applicant is unable to find a current and accurate address for Howard Kravitz, the applicant may wish to request that the Tribunal issue an order pursuant to Rule 1.7(p) requiring the organization respondent, as the individual respondent’s former employer, to provide the last known address and contact information for Howard Kravitz. If such a request were made, the Tribunal would consider the request and determine whether it was appropriate to make such an order.

12I am not seized of this matter.