HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Karen Reeves

Applicant

-and-

Case N’ Drum Oil LP, Larry Melnyk, Suzanne Newington and Craig Read

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: August 22, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1567

Indexed as: Reeves v. Case N’ Drum Oil

[1] The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the failure of the individual respondent, Craig Read (the “respondent Read”), to file a Response to the Application.

[2] 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 May 12, 2010.

[3] On July 20, 2010 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondents. The respondents were advised that a Response must be filed with the Tribunal no later than 35 days after July 20, 2010.

[4] On August 24, 2010, the respondents, Case N’ Drum Oil LP, Larry Melnyk, and Suzanne Newington, filed their Response. They advised that the respondent Read no longer worked for the organization respondent, and provided his last known mailing address.

[5] On September 14, 2010 the Application and Response were delivered to the respondent Read at the address provided in the Response. The respondent Read did not file a Response, or otherwise contact the Tribunal.

[6] On November 2, 2010, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, [2010 HRTO 2191](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2010/2191), which stated at paras. 5 and 7:

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 individual and corporate respondents without their participation. The respondent Read’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.

If the respondent Read wishes to participate in this proceeding, he shall file a Response by November 10, 2010, 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 this respondent and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

[7] On November 8, 2010, the respondent Read sent the Tribunal an e-mail, which stated that he had reviewed the other respondents’ Response, believed that it was accurate, and did not have anything to add to it. He also stated that he is no longer employed by the organization respondent, and does not wish to participate in the proceeding. He did not file a Response to the Application.

[8] In the circumstances, the Tribunal deems the respondent Read to have waived all rights to participate in the proceeding, but he is not deemed to have accepted the allegations in the Application, and will continue to receive notice of the proceeding.

[9] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 22^nd^ day of August, 2011.

“Signed by”

Ken Bhattacharjee

Vice-chair