Terri-Lynn Garrie v. Janus Joan Inc. and Stacey Szuch, 2010 HRTO 820

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Terri-Lynn Garrie

Applicant

-and-

Janus Joan Inc. and Stacey Szuch

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: April 14, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 820

Indexed as: Garrie v. Janus Joan

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on November 12, 2009. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ failure to file a Response to the Application.

2On February 12, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application and delivered the Application to the respondents by regular mail at the address 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.

3On March 16, 2010, the individual respondent, Stacey Szuch, telephoned the Tribunal and told a staff person that Janus Joan Inc. is closed. The staff person informed Ms. Szuch that she should send a letter with supporting documentation to the Tribunal showing that Janus Joan Inc. is closed.

4On March 22, 2010, the Tribunal received an unsigned letter with no letterhead or return address, which stated:

Janus Joan Inc. closed January 31, 2010 including Payroll & GST accounts etc. discontinued (ACSES). Due to legalities, there is no authority to acknowledge this File dated February 12, 2010.

There was no supporting documentation attached to the letter.

5It is now more than five days after the date for filing the Response. The respondents have not filed a Response, and it appears from the letter that the Tribunal received that they do not intend to file a Response. The respondents should be aware that there are implications for failing to file a Response.

6A Tribunal Application is a legal proceeding. If a violation of the Code is found the Tribunal may order the respondents to provide monetary compensation or other forms of restitution to the applicant and to take steps to promote future compliance with the Code. Failure to file a Response may lead to orders against the respondents 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.

7If the respondents wish to participate in this proceeding, a Response must be filed by April 21, 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 shall proceed without further notice to the respondents, and may take any or all of the other steps set out in Rule 5.5.

8I am not seized of this matter.