HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Maxime Gilbert

Applicant

-and-

Restaurant Patty Bolands

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N :

Dominic Daoust

Applicant

-and-

Restaurant Patty Bolands

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N :

Maria Garcia

Applicant

-and-

Restaurant Patty Bolands

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N :

Bernard Lamarche

Applicant

-and-

Restaurant Patty Bolands

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N :

Syndie April

Applicant

-and-

Restaurant Patty Bolands

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N :

Claude Brideau

Applicant

-and-

Restaurant Patty Bolands

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N :

Sylvie Elliott

Applicant

-and-

Restaurant Patty Bolands

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: February 8, 2010

2009-01241-I; 2009-01246-I; 2009-01430-I

Citation: 2010 HRTO 285

Indexed as: Gilbert v. Restaurant Patty Bolands

1The applicants filed separate Applications under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), alleging that the respondent, a restaurant, discriminated against them in services, goods and facilities because of their creed. These seven Applications will be processed together. The Tribunal will consider whether to formally consolidate them if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute through mediation or if they decline mediation.

2The respondent has not filed Responses to the Applications. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the failure to respond.

3The Tribunal issued Notices of the Applications with respect to six of the Applications and delivered the Applications to the respondent on July 6, 2009. The Notice of Application and Application in File Number 2009-01197-I was issued and delivered on September 22, 2009. The Applications are all completed in French.

4On July 10, 2009, the respondent sent an e-mail in English to the Tribunal confirming receipt of the six Applications and asking the Tribunal to translate the Applications because the respondent cannot understand French documents. It also asked the Tribunal to allow late Responses. The Tribunal replied by e-mail and informed the respondent in English that the Tribunal does not translate documents filed in one of the official languages. The Tribunal’s e-mail explained that the respondent was responsible for doing whatever is necessary to understand and respond to the documents. The Tribunal referred the respondent to its Practice Direction on Requests for Language Interpretation on its website for additional information.

5On July 28, 2009, the respondent again requested in an e-mail that the Tribunal send it the Applications in English, and allow an extension to file Responses. The Tribunal replied by e-mail the same day, stating that it would not provide translated documents, and asking the respondent to specify the date by which it could file Responses. The respondent has not communicated with the Tribunal since that date. There has been no response or acknowledgement of the Application delivered on September 22, 2009.

6The Tribunal’s practice in bilingual applications is to communicate during the pre-hearing process in the language of French or English as indicated by the parties. In this case, as the applicants prefer communication in French and the respondent prefers communication in English, all written communication from the Tribunal to the parties is provided in both English and French. A bilingual case processing officer is available to answer oral inquires from the parties in their language of choice. However, the Tribunal’s practice is to accept written communications from parties in the language in which they are received. The Tribunal does not translate an applicant’s material into English or a respondent’s material into French.

7A Notice of Application directs a respondent to file the Response with the Tribunal no later than thirty-five (35) days from the date of the Notice. Rule 1.22 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure confirms that a document delivered by mail is deemed received five days after the postmark date. The deadline for the respondent to file his Responses to all seven Applications has passed. However, the respondent has not filed his Responses or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal since July 28, 2009. The Tribunal’s Notice of Application dated September 22, 2009 has not been returned.

8A Tribunal application is a legal proceeding. If a violation of the Code is found the Tribunal may order a respondent to make monetary compensation or other forms of restitution to the applicant and to take steps to future promote compliance with the Code. Failure to file a Response may lead to orders against a respondent 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.

9If the respondent wishes to participate in these proceedings, Responses must be filed by February 20, 2010, a date which will allow the respondent sufficient time to translate, understand and respond to the Applications. If the Responses are not received by this date, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondent and may take any or all of the other steps set out in Rule 5.5.

10A copy of this Interim Decision will be sent to the respondent by regular mail, by e-mail and by courier to the address provided by the applicants.

11I am not seized of this matter.