Dianne Robinson v. Christine’s Fitness & Personal Training Inc., 2010 HRTO 314

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Dianne Robinson

Applicant

-and-

Christine’s Fitness & Personal Training Inc., Renay Cohen and Linda Sorichetti

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: February 10, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 314 Indexed as: Robinson v. Christine’s Fitness & Personal Training

1This Application was filed June 16, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). A Hearing is scheduled for March 12, 2010.

2On November 18, 2009 the Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Application and noted that the respondents had not filed a Response. The Tribunal letter set out the consequences of not filing a Response, including having the Tribunal deem the respondents to have accepted all the allegations set out in the Application. The respondents were directed to file a Response within 35 days of the letter or the Tribunal would consider exercising the power to deem the respondents to have accepted the allegations. No Response was received.

3On January 7, 2010, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 28 deeming the respondents to have accepted the allegations set out in the Application.

4On January 12, 2010 the Tribunal scheduled a hearing for March 12, 2010.

5On January 14, 2010 the respondents’ counsel wrote to the Tribunal advising that they had been recently re-retained to represent the respondents. Although they had represented the respondents at the time the complaint was filed at the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”), they were no longer authorized to represent the respondents when the transitional Application was filed. The counsel had advised the Tribunal of this when the Application was filed and the applicant therefore delivered the Application directly to the respondents and the Tribunal communicated thereafter with the respondents directly.

6The respondents were directed to file their explanation for their non-responsiveness together with their original response to the Commission. The respondents have since submitted the response they filed at the Commission which indicates that they deny the applicant’s allegations and that they filed witness statements with the Commisison to support their version of events. The respondents allege that, when unrepresented, they did not understand the relationship between the Commission and the Tribunal and mistakenly believed that the response and information filed with the Commission were before the Tribunal.

7The respondents are not the only persons to have experienced some confusion relating to the transition of complaints to the Tribunal. I find that the respondents’ explanation for their non-response, and their response to the merits of the complaint justify setting aside my Interim Decision of January 7, 2010 and permitting the respondents to participate in these proceedings.

8The hearing will proceed as scheduled on March 12, 2010. However, it will commence at 9.30 rather than 1.30 and will continue until 4.30.

9The applicant is directed to file a statement of additional facts, if any and request for remedy and make disclosure of all arguably relevant documents within 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The respondents shall file their statement of additional facts, if any, and response to remedy and make disclosure of all arguably relevant documents within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision. Both parties shall make a list of their witnesses, together with a description of what each witness will say by March 5, 2010.