Michelin v. Nishnawbe Gamik Friendship Centre, 2011 HRTO 1623

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Neil Michelin

Applicant

-and-

Nishnawbe Gamik Friendship Centre, Chris Carter and Ralph Johnson

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: August 30, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1623

Indexed as: Michelin v. Nishnawbe Gamik Friendship Centre

BACKGROUND

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on April 15, 2010 alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment and services, goods and facilities, on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, family status and marital status contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“Code”).

2On November 23, 2010, the organizational respondent filed a partial Response and a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on an early basis. By way of Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 162 the request to dismiss was denied and the organizational respondent was ordered to file a full Response (Form 2).

3On February 11, 2011, the organizational respondent filed its full Response (Form 2) and identified Chris Carter and Ralph Johnson as additional respondents.

4On March 2, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice to Named Respondents advising Chris Carter and Ralph Johnson that they had been identified as additional respondents and each was required to file a full Response (Form 2) no later than 35 days from the date of the letter.

5On April 13, 2011, the applicant filed a Request to Withdraw the Application as against the organizational respondent only. The Request to Withdraw appears to have been delivered to the organizational respondent but not the individual respondents.

6On May 5, 2011, respondent Carter wrote to the Tribunal providing a one page response to the applicant’s allegations; however, he did not file a full Response (Form 2) as required by the Tribunal’s Notice.

7As of the date of this Interim Decision, respondent Johnson has not filed a Response (Form 2), nor further corresponded or communicated with the Tribunal. None of the respondents have filed submissions in response to the applicant’s request to withdraw the Application as against the organizational respondent.

DECISION

8An 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. The respondents’ 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.

9The organizational respondent provided the mailing address for respondent Johnson. The Tribunal forwarded the Notice of Named Respondent to this address and no materials were returned. Given that respondent Johnson has failed to file a Response (Form 2) or correspond with the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondent Johnson by regular mail. If respondent Johnson wishes to participate in this proceeding, he is required to file a Response (Form 2) within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the original deadline.

10Respondent Carter is also required to file a full Response (Form 2) within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

11If a fully completed Response (Form 2) is not received by each respondent, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to that respondent and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

12All respondents, including the organizational respondent, are also required to file written submissions in response to the applicant’s Request to Withdraw. A copy of the Request will be attached to this Interim Decision.

13Accordingly, the Tribunal orders as follows:

• Respondents Carter and Johnson are each ordered to file with the Tribunal a full Response (Form 2) within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision. These respondents are also directed to indicate in their respective Responses as to whether or not they are willing to participate in mediation; and
• Within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision, all three respondents are also required to file written submissions in response to the applicant’s Request to Withdraw. A copy of the applicant’s Request to Withdraw will be attached to this Interim Decision.

14The Tribunal will consider the parties’ submissions, and may determine any of the preliminary issues based on the parties’ written submissions, and/or may schedule future steps. The Tribunal’s Forms are available on its website at www.hrto.ca.

15I am not seized of this matter.