minicounsel

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carlito Gomes

Applicant

-and-

Skyline Boutique Hotels & Resorts Inc., Gill Blutrich, Nihal Taha, Laurence Roptus, Pearl Rossouw and Sarah Jaikishun

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: July 20, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1367

Indexed as: Gomes v. Skyline Boutique Hotels & Resorts Inc.

[1] The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on December 10, 2010.

[2] On May 4, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondents. The respondents were advised that they must file a Response to the Application with the Tribunal by no later than June 8, 2011.

[3] On June 8, 2011, the personal respondent, Nihal Taha, filed a Response to the Application. On June 22, 1011, a Response was filed by the respondents, Skyline Boutique Hotels and Resorts Inc., Gil Blutrich, Laurence Roptus and Pearl Rossouw.

[4] As of the date of this Interim Decision the personal respondent, Sarah Jaikashun, has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to her been returned. The Notice of Application was sent to Ms. Jaikashun at the address provided by the applicant for Ms. Jaikashun, namely 200 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, which is Ms. Jaikashun’s former place of employment - the Pantages Hotel Toronto Centre.

[5] On July 8, 2011, the Tribunal was informed by counsel for the corporate respondent, that a copy of the Application was forwarded to the last known address of Ms. Jaikashun and that subsequent discussions between the corporate respondent’s representatives and Ms. Jaikashun confirmed that the Application was received.

[6] An 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 respondents without their participation. Ms. Jaikashun’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.

[7] As noted above, the applicant has provided a mailing address for Ms. Jaikashun, which is her former place of employment. Counsel for the corporate respondent has confirmed that the corporate respondent has a last known address for Ms. Jaikashun and has previously been able to contact her. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to Ms. Jaikashun by regular mail at the address provided by the applicant, as well as a copy for Ms. Jaikashun by fax to the corporate respondent’s counsel.

[8] The corporate respondent is directed to deliver this Interim Decision to Ms. Jaikashun forthwith at the last known address that it has for her, and to confirm in writing to the Tribunal such delivery.

[9] If Ms. Jaikashun wishes to participate in this proceeding, a Response must be filed with the Tribunal no later than fourteen days from the date of this Interim decision together with an explanation of why the 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 Ms. Jaikashun and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

[10] Ms. Jaikashun is directed to provide the Tribunal with a mailing address at which she can receive correspondence and documents associated with this Application.

[12] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 20^th^ Day of July, 2011.

“Signed by”

Sherry Liang

Vice-chair

Gomes v. Skyline Boutique Hotels & Resorts Inc., 2011 HRTO 1367

Case Summary

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

[1] The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on December 10, 2010.

[2] On May 4, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondents. The respondents were advised that they must file a Response to the Application with the Tribunal by no later than June 8, 2011.

[3] On June 8, 2011, the personal respondent, Nihal Taha, filed a Response to the Application. On June 22, 1011, a Response was filed by the respondents, Skyline Boutique Hotels and Resorts Inc., Gil Blutrich, Laurence Roptus and Pearl Rossouw.

[8] The corporate respondent is directed to deliver this Interim Decision to Ms. Jaikashun forthwith at the last known address that it has for her, and to confirm in writing to the Tribunal such delivery.

[10] Ms. Jaikashun is directed to provide the Tribunal with a mailing address at which she can receive correspondence and documents associated with this Application.

[12] I am not seized of this matter.

Gomes v. Skyline Boutique Hotels & Resorts Inc., 2011 HRTO 1367

Case Summary

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

[1] The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on December 10, 2010.

[2] On May 4, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondents. The respondents were advised that they must file a Response to the Application with the Tribunal by no later than June 8, 2011.

[3] On June 8, 2011, the personal respondent, Nihal Taha, filed a Response to the Application. On June 22, 1011, a Response was filed by the respondents, Skyline Boutique Hotels and Resorts Inc., Gil Blutrich, Laurence Roptus and Pearl Rossouw.

[8] The corporate respondent is directed to deliver this Interim Decision to Ms. Jaikashun forthwith at the last known address that it has for her, and to confirm in writing to the Tribunal such delivery.

[10] Ms. Jaikashun is directed to provide the Tribunal with a mailing address at which she can receive correspondence and documents associated with this Application.

[12] I am not seized of this matter.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

[1] The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on December 10, 2010.

[2] On May 4, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondents. The respondents were advised that they must file a Response to the Application with the Tribunal by no later than June 8, 2011.

[3] On June 8, 2011, the personal respondent, Nihal Taha, filed a Response to the Application. On June 22, 1011, a Response was filed by the respondents, Skyline Boutique Hotels and Resorts Inc., Gil Blutrich, Laurence Roptus and Pearl Rossouw.

[8] The corporate respondent is directed to deliver this Interim Decision to Ms. Jaikashun forthwith at the last known address that it has for her, and to confirm in writing to the Tribunal such delivery.

[10] Ms. Jaikashun is directed to provide the Tribunal with a mailing address at which she can receive correspondence and documents associated with this Application.

[11] The responding parties have indicated their consent to engage in mediation and the Registrar will schedule a mediation in the normal course. In the Response Ms. Jaikashun is asked to indicate whether she also wishes to participate in the mediation session.

[12] I am not seized of this matter.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

[1] The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on December 10, 2010.

[2] On May 4, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondents. The respondents were advised that they must file a Response to the Application with the Tribunal by no later than June 8, 2011.

[3] On June 8, 2011, the personal respondent, Nihal Taha, filed a Response to the Application. On June 22, 1011, a Response was filed by the respondents, Skyline Boutique Hotels and Resorts Inc., Gil Blutrich, Laurence Roptus and Pearl Rossouw.

[8] The corporate respondent is directed to deliver this Interim Decision to Ms. Jaikashun forthwith at the last known address that it has for her, and to confirm in writing to the Tribunal such delivery.

[10] Ms. Jaikashun is directed to provide the Tribunal with a mailing address at which she can receive correspondence and documents associated with this Application.

[11] The responding parties have indicated their consent to engage in mediation and the Registrar will schedule a mediation in the normal course. In the Response Ms. Jaikashun is asked to indicate whether she also wishes to participate in the mediation session.

[12] I am not seized of this matter.