minicounsel

Dunford v. CMM Group, 2011 HRTO 2023 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

November 8, 2011

Dunford v. CMM Group, 2011 HRTO 2023

Case Summary

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent. The respondent failed to file a response after two notices were sent by the Tribunal to different addresses. The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so may result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ann-Marie Dunford

Applicant

-and-

CMM Group

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: November 8, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2023

Indexed as: Dunford v. CMM Group

[1] The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on May 25, 2011.

[2] On June 29, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondent in which it directed that a Response to the Application must be filed with the Tribunal not later than August 3, 2011. The Notice was mailed to the address listed on the Applicant’s pay stub. There was no Response filed by the respondent nor was the Tribunal’s correspondence to it returned.

[3] On August 31, 2011 the Tribunal issued a second Notice of Application to the respondent in which it directed that a Response to the Application must be filed with the Tribunal not later than October 5, 2011. The Notice was mailed to an alternate address provided by the applicant. This alternate address is the business location where the applicant was employed by the respondent.

[4] As of the date of this Interim Decision the respondent has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to it been returned.

[5] 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’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.

[6] The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondent by regular mail and courier.

[7] If the respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, it shall file a Response with the Tribunal within 10 days of 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 the respondent and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

[8] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 8^th day of November, 2011.

“signed by”

Brian Eyolfson

Vice-chair