minicounsel

Clifford Beatty v. Best Theratronics Ltd., 2011 HRTO 665 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

April 6, 2011

Clifford Beatty v. Best Theratronics Ltd., 2011 HRTO 665

Case Summary

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code. The respondent failed to file a response by the required deadline. The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal ordered the respondent to file a response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Clifford Beatty

Applicant

-and-

Best Theratronics Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: April 6, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 665

Indexed as: Beatty v. Best Theratronics

[1] The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) on January 12, 2011.

[2] On February 15, 2011 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondent and to the American Society for Quality which was named as organization which may be affected by the Application. The respondent was advised that a Response must be filed with the Tribunal by March 22, 2011. The affected party was advised that it could file a Request to Intervene by the same date.

[3] 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.

[4] 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.

[5] The 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.

[6] 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.

[7] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 6^th^ day of April, 2011.

“Signed By”

Kathleen Martin

Vice-chair