HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Susan Sutherland

Applicant

-and-

Carla Campbell, Diana Delgado, Line Duchesne, Melissa Morson and Judy Scott

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: April 19, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 851

Indexed as: Sutherland v. Campbell

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on January 4, 2010, alleging discrimination and harassment in housing on the basis of family status. The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite which was denied in an earlier Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 346. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) to amend the named respondents in her Application and the respondents’ failure to file a Response to the Application within the time period required by the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

RFOP

2The Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to Constance Hamilton Housing Cooperative (“the Cooperative”) and Carla Campbell as respondents. The applicant has filed an RFOP to amend her Application to remove the Cooperative and name, in addition to Carla Campbell, four other individuals as respondents. The applicant submits that on page 13 of her Application, she named Carla Campbell, Manager, and four members of the Board of Directors as respondents: Diana Delgado, Line Duchesne, Melissa Morson and Judy Scott. She submits that she named five people individually and not the membership of the Cooperative.

3It appears from pages 3 and 4 of the Application that the applicant named the Cooperative as an organizational respondent and Carla Campbell as an individual respondent. However, while the Application does not appear to have a page numbered “13”, on page 1 of Form 1-B, the applicant appears to name Carla Campbell and the Board of Directors of the Cooperative as respondents and indicates, “see attached for addresses.” On attached pages, the applicant provides the names and addresses of the four members of the Board of Directors referred to above.

4The applicant provided a Statement of Delivery with her RFOP indicating that she sent her RFOP to both the named and proposed additional respondents. The Tribunal has not received a response to the RFOP from any of the named or proposed respondents and the time for doing so has elapsed. In the circumstances, the applicant’s RFOP is granted and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

FAILURE TO RESPOND

5On January 26, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the Cooperative and Carla Campbell. The respondents were advised that a Response must be filed with the Tribunal not later than 35 days after January 26, 2010. As of the date of this Interim Decision, while the respondents responded to the applicant’s Request to Expedite, the respondents have not filed a Response (Form 2) to the Application as directed. While it is no longer necessary for the Cooperative, as an organizational respondent, to respond, a Response is still required on behalf of Ms. Campbell.

6An application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding. A finding that a violation of the Code has occurred 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 organizational respondents without their participation. Ms. Campbell’s 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.

7If Ms. Campbell wishes to participate in this proceeding, she shall file a Response within seven days of the date of this Interim Decision, together with an explanation of why a Response was not filed in accordance with the Notice of Application. If a Response is not received, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to her and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

8Having regard to the Tribunal’s Rules, the individual respondents Diana Delgado, Line Duchesne, Melissa Morson and Judy Scott are required to file a Response (Form 2) no later than 35 days from the date of this Interim Decision. The Registrar will provide these respondents with a copy of the Application and the Notice of Application, along with a copy of this Interim Decision.

9As both the applicant and Ms. Campbell have indicated an interest in mediation, the Tribunal will schedule a mediation on the earliest possible date which is mutually agreeable to the parties after all the Responses have been filed or the time for filing has passed.

10I am not seized of this matter.