Howard v. Balson, 2012 HRTO 1084

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gillian Howard

Applicant

-and-

Crystal Balson

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: May 31, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1084

Indexed as: Howard v. Balson

1This is an Application filed on December 29, 2011 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). On January 18, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondent in which it directed that that a Response to the Application must be filed with the Tribunal not later than February 22, 2012.

2As of March 21, 2012, the Tribunal had not received a Response from the respondent and so issued an Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 587, in which it directed the respondent to file a Response, together with an explanation why the Response was not filed in a timely fashion, by March 31, 2012, if she wished to participate in the proceeding.

3This Interim Decision was delivered by courier to the address provided by the applicant for the respondent. It was returned to the Tribunal with a notation that it could not be delivered because there was no unit number, which the courier company required.

4The applicant was advised of this by letter dated April 13, 2012. She was also advised that the Tribunal could not take further steps on her Application unless she provided, by May 4, 2012, a current, complete and accurate address for the respondent. Alternatively, the applicant was advised that if she believed the address she provided in her Application was current, complete and accurate, she was to provide reasons for her belief.

5The applicant responded on May 9, 2012 that she was unable to provide the unit number as requested. However, the applicant also advised that she believed that the respondent had seen the Application because she was speaking to someone at Avon Canada (the applicant advises the respondent is a sales rep for Avon Canada) and that person said: “…Ms Balson [the respondent] had mentioned the Human Rights complaint, although Ms Lefebvre did say she had not seen a copy of it.”

6I am not prepared to infer from this that the respondent has seen the Application, nor that the address provided to the Tribunal is “current, complete and accurate.” As pointed out to the applicant in the April 13, 2012 letter, Rule 6.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states, in part:

6.6. An Application accepted by the Tribunal for processing:

a) will be sent by the Tribunal to the Respondent(s), and to any trade union, occupational or professional organization identified in the Application, at the addresses provided in the Application; or

b) will not be dealt with in respect of a Respondent or a trade union, occupational or professional organization that cannot be contacted in accordance with paragraph (a) above, and the Applicant will be so advised; or

7The applicant must provide a current, complete and accurate address for the respondent to Tribunal by June 14, 2012, failing which her Application will be dismissed.