<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
<!--mc:open:cover-parties-->
**Between:**
Charlotte Vallee, Applicant
-and-
Fairweather Ltd., Respondent
---
**Interim Decision**
<!--mc:close:cover-parties-->
**Adjudicator:** Michelle Flaherty
**Date:** December 2, 2011
**Citation:** 2011 HRTO 2170
**Indexed as:** Vallee v. Fairweather Ltd.
---
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
[1] This is an Application under [s. 34](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html#sec34_smooth) of the [Human Rights Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html), R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code"). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondent's continued failure to file a Response to the Application.
[2] The Tribunal issued a previous Interim Decision, [2011 HRTO 1836](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2011/1836), noting the respondent's failure to file a Response and directing it to do so by October 22, 2011 together with an explanation for why it had not filed the Response in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules. The Tribunal specifically drew the respondent's attention to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules, which states:
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 may take any of the other steps in Rule 5.5.
[3] The Tribunal sent the Notice of Application and the Interim Decision to the respondent by regular mail and by email. Neither was returned as undeliverable. To date, the respondent has not filed a Response.
[4] In Kearns v. 1327827 Ontario, [2009 HRTO 457](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/457), the Tribunal set out its approach in circumstances where a respondent fails to file a Response after having been cautioned, and the rationale for that approach. The Tribunal noted that the enforcement procedures prescribed by the [Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html) are important mechanisms available to the public for claiming and enforcing fundamental human rights. These enforcement procedures also provide a clear means for respondents to explain and defend against human rights allegations. Where no Response is filed and the Tribunal is satisfied the respondent has received notice, the Tribunal will proceed to determine the Application in the absence of the respondent.
[5] Accordingly, the respondent is deemed to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding. The Tribunal will proceed without the participation of the respondent. The respondent is deemed to have waived its right to participate pursuant to Rule 5.5(c) and to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application pursuant to Rule 5.5(a).
## DECISION
[6] The Tribunal makes the following Order:
1) The respondent is deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation in these proceedings and is further deemed to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application;
2) The applicant is directed to submit, within 30 days of this Interim Decision, any additional materials, evidence and written submissions she wishes the Tribunal to consider in deciding this Application;
3) The applicant is also required to advise the Tribunal in writing, within 30 days of this Interim Decision, as to whether or not she wishes to make oral submissions via conference call before the Tribunal finally determines the Application;
4) If the applicant advises that she does not wish to make oral submissions, the Tribunal will finally determine the Application, including deciding the appropriate remedy, based only on the materials before the Tribunal that have been filed by the applicant; and
5) If the applicant advises that she wishes to make oral submissions in addition to the submission of documentary materials/submissions, the Tribunal will schedule a one hour conference call.
[7] I am not seized of this matter.
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of December, 2011.
"signed by"
___________________________________
Michelle Flaherty
Vice-chair
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel