Stacey Emery v. Omni Facility Canada Corporation and Ed Avila, 2010 HRTO 428

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stacey Emery

Applicant

-and-

Omni Facility Canada Corporation and Ed Avila

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: February 24, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 428

Indexed as: Emery v. Omni Facility Canada

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) on September 28, 2009.

2The Tribunal issued a Notice of the Application (the “Notice) on November 18, 2009 advising the respondents their Responses to the Application must be filed no later than 35 days after November 18, 2009. The Notice was sent to the organizational respondent at a Toronto address and to the personal respondent, Ed Avila, at Omni Facility Canada Corporation at a Windsor address. These are the addresses provided by the applicant in her Application. A Notice was also sent to the Teamsters Local 880 at a Windsor address as the Application identified Teamsters Local 880 as an affected party.

3On February 10, 2010 the Tribunal contacted the applicant to determine whether she had any alternative addresses for the respondents. The applicant stated that she did not. An internet search by the Tribunal identified that Omni Facility Services Canada Corporation is a national cleaning and maintenance company with 15 locations across Canada with its principal human resources location being the Toronto address to which the Application had been delivered.

4As of the date of this Interim Decision the respondents have not filed Responses or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal. Teamsters Local 880 has not communicated with the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s Notices have not been returned.

5An application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding, which, if a violation of the Code is found, 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 respondents’ 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.

6If the respondents wish to participate in this proceeding, they shall file their Responses by March 8, 2010 together with explanations for why the Responses were not filed in accordance with the November 18, 2009 Notice. If the Responses are not received the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to any respondent who has not responded, and may take any or all of the other steps set out in Rule 5.5.

7The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondents by courier and by regular mail.

8I am not seized of this matter.