Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
David Douglas Applicant
-and-
Startek Canada Services Ltd. Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: March 17, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 539 Indexed as: Douglas v. Startek Canada Services
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) on November 29, 2010.
2On December 7, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondent. The respondent was advised that a Response must be filed with the Tribunal by January 11, 2011. As of the date of this Interim Decision the respondent has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence with the respondent been returned to it.
3An 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.
4The applicant has provided an address for the respondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondent by regular mail and courier.
5If the respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, it shall file a Response by March 28, 2011, 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.
6I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 17th day of March, 2011.
“Signed by”
___________________________________
Kathleen Martin Vice-chair