Yong Xiang Li v. Toronto General Hospital, 2012 HRTO 1146

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Yong Xiang Li

Applicant

-and-

Toronto General Hospital

Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 5001

Intervener

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: June 12, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1146

Indexed as: Li v. Toronto General Hospital

Introduction

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”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

2On February 2, 2012 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application on the basis that there may be another legal proceeding dealing with the subject-matter of the Application pursuant to Rule 14 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal directed the parties and the affected union to provide submissions on the issue no later than thirty days from February 3, 2012.

3On April 3, 2012 the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision addressing the issue of the Notice of Intent to Defer and a Request to Intervene filed by the union. The Tribunal granted the union’s request to intervene and concluded that it was not appropriate to defer the Application. The Tribunal noted in this Interim Decision that the respondent did not respond to the Notice of Intent to Defer. The Tribunal directed that the respondent file its Response to the Application within 35 days of the date of the Interim Decision.

4As of the date of this Interim Decision the respondent has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to it been returned.

5An 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.

6The applicant has provided a mailing address for the respondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondent by regular mail.

7If 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 Interim Decision dated April 3, 2012. 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.