minicounsel

Gwendolyn Ritchie v. Village Green Org Ltd. and Stanley Mantrop, 2010 HRTO 496 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

March 4, 2010

Gwendolyn Ritchie v. Village Green Org Ltd. and Stanley Mantrop, 2010 HRTO 496

Case Summary

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents. The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period. The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a Response by March 9, 2010, could result in the Tribunal proceeding without their participation and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gwendolyn Ritchie

Applicant

-and-

Village Green Org Ltd. and Stanley Mantrop

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: March 4, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 496

Indexed as: Ritchie v. Village Green

[1] The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on October 13, 2009.

[2] The Tribunal issued a Notice of Application and delivered the Application to the respondents at the addresses provided by the applicant. The Notice directed the respondents to file a 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.

[3] It is now more than ten days after the date for filing the Response. The respondents have not filed a Response, or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s Notice has not been returned.

[4] A 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.

[5] The applicant has provided a business address, home address, phone numbers and an email address for the respondents. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondents by regular mail, courier and email.

[6] If the respondents wish to participate in this proceeding, a Response must be filed by March 9, 2010, together with an explanation why it was not filed in accordance with the deadline contained in the Notice of Application. If the Response is not received by this date, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondents, and may take any or all of the other steps set out in Rule 5.5.

Dated at Toronto, this 4^th day of March, 2010.

“signed by”

Faisal Bhabha

Vice-chair