Ligia Reyes v. Andrea Seepersaud and Fatena Akache, 2010 HRTO 610

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ligia Reyes

Applicant

-and-

Andrea Seepersaud and Fatena Akache

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: March 22, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 610

Indexed as: Reyes v. Andrea Seepersaud

1This Application was filed June 30, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The institutional respondent, Intercultural Neighbourhood Social Services has closed, and the applicant has abandoned her Application against this entity.

3The applicant initially delivered the Application (Form TR-1, original complaint and a binder of additional documents) to counsel for the respondents. However, counsel advised the applicant that he was no longer retained to represent the respondents and returned the material to the applicant.

4The Tribunal advised the applicant that she was required to deliver the Application directly to the personal respondents.

5On February 5, 2010, the applicant delivered the Application material to the personal respondent, Fatena Akache by hand at her home address and filed a statement of delivery (Form C) confirming that she has done so. The Tribunal is satisfied that the personal respondent, Fatena Akache has received a copy of the Application.

6On February 8, 2010, the applicant asserts that she attempted to deliver the Application material to the personal respondent, Andrea Seepersaud by delivering it by hand to the office of Ms. Seepersaud's alleged life partner, Bob Delaney. Mr. Delaney's secretary allegedly offered to deliver it to Ms. Seepersaud. However, the applicant alleges that Mr. Delaney brought the Application materials to her residence that day claiming it was "abandoned" at his office. The applicant alleges that the police subsequently contacted her and advised her that Mr. Delaney and Ms. Seepersaud objected to her attempts to contact them and/or deliver any material to them.

7On March 15, 2010, the applicant sent the Application material by registered mail to the home address of Ms. Seepersaud. The package was returned to the applicant by the police who allegedly advised her not to resend it.

8The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has made all reasonable efforts to deliver the Application material to Andrea Seepersaud and that Andrea Seepersaud is deliberately refusing to receive the Application.

9A copy of this Decision, together with the Application material will be sent by courier to the personal respondent, Andrea Seepersaud by the Registrar-Transition and the personal respondent will be deemed to have received the Application within five days of the date of this Interim Decision.

10The personal respondents are advised that they are obliged to file a response (on a Form TR-2) within 35 days of receiving the Application.

11The Tribunal application is 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 respondents without their participation. The respondents' attention is drawn to Rule 3.2 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications under Sections 53(3) and 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, which reads as follows:

3.2 Where an Application (Form A or Form TR-1)) 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, including the allegations set out in the complaint;

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.