Colleen Letourneau v. Jenny Craig Canada Inc. and Catherine Muto, 2011 HRTO 342

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Colleen Letourneau Applicant

• and -

Jenny Craig Canada Inc. and Catherine Muto Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: February 16, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 342 Indexed as: Letourneau v. Jenny Craig Canada

1The applicant filed this Application on October 4, 2010, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment on the basis of age.

2On November 2, 2010, the Tribunal mailed the Notices of Application to both respondents at the address provided by the applicant, which appear to be the corporate respondent’s offices.

3On December 21, 2010, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 2520, directing the respondents to file their Form 2 Responses. The Interim Decision noted that neither of the Notices of Application had been returned to the Tribunal.

4On January 14, 2011, a Response was received from the corporate respondent filed on behalf of the corporate respondent only. The corporate respondent’s Response indicates that the personal respondent is no longer employed by the corporate respondent.

5No Response has been received from the personal respondent.

Personal Respondent

6It is unclear whether the personal respondent has received a copy of the Application. It appears that the address provided by the applicant for personal respondent is not the personal respondent’s current contact information.

7As explained by the Tribunal in Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347 (“Guild”), while the Tribunal delivers completed applications to respondents, it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide accurate contact information and the Tribunal relies on applicants to provide a correct address for respondents named in their applications.

8In the Response, the corporate respondent indicated that personal respondent is no longer employed by it and that it does not represent the personal respondent.

9Rule 6.6(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal will not deal with an application in respect of a respondent who cannot be contacted at the contact information provided by the applicant. Generally, in such cases, the applicant will be required to explain what efforts were undertaken to find and verify a current address for the respondent, and explain why this contact information is believed to be the “most recent address”, see Guild, supra, and Begley v. Eratostene, 2009 HRTO 235.

10In these circumstances, the Tribunal makes the following order:

(i) The corporate respondent is directed to provide the applicant and the Tribunal with the last known address of personal respondent within five days of the date of this Interim Decision; and

(ii) The Tribunal will deliver the Application to the personal respondent at the last known address provided by the corporate respondent.

11I am not seized of this matter.