<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
**B E T W E E N:**
Dwayne Bourne
Applicant
-and-
The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, Heather O’Connor, Stephen Van Der Horden, Duncan Scott, Cody Smith and Kristy Tipping
Respondents
---
**INTERIM DECISION**
**Adjudicator:** Brian Eyolfson
**Decision Date:** August 30, 2012
**Citation:** 2012 HRTO 1651
**Indexed as:** Bourne v. Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board
---
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
[1] The applicant filed this Application under [section 34](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html#sec34_smooth) of the [Human Rights Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html), R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on May 18, 2012.
[2] On June 20, 2012 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondents in which it directed that a Response to the Application must be filed with the Tribunal not later than July 25, 2012. The Notice of Application was sent to the address of each respondent that was provided by the applicant in his Application. The Notice of Application was not returned to the Tribunal for any of the respondents.
[3] On July 3, 2012, the Tribunal received e-mail correspondence from counsel for The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, Heather O’Connor, Stephen Van Der Horden, and Duncan Scott seeking an extension of time to file a Response.
[4] By email dated July 9, 2012, the Tribunal granted the request of the respondents represented by counsel for an extension of time to file a Response to August 15, 2012. The time for filing a Response for the individual respondent, Kristy Tipping, remained unchanged from July 25, 2012. A copy of the Tribunal’s email granting the extension request was forwarded to the individual respondent, Kristy Tipping, by regular mail at the address provided by the applicant in the Application. This correspondence sent to the individual respondent, Kristy Tipping, was returned to the Tribunal on July 25, 2012, indicating no apartment number was provided with the address; however, the applicant has indicated that Ms. Tipping is a “Building Manager”.
[5] As of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondents represented by counsel have filed a Response and counsel has indicated that she will confirm whether the Response is also filed on behalf of the individual respondent, Cody Smith. The individual respondent, Kristy Tipping, has not filed a Response.
[6] An application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding. A finding that a violation of the [Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html) 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 the respondent without his participation. Ms. Tipping’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.
[7] The applicant has provided an address for the individual respondent, Kristy Tipping. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondent by regular mail and courier.
[8] If the individual respondent, Kristy Tipping, wishes to participate in this proceeding, she 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.
[9] I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 30<sup>th</sup> day of August, 2012.
“Signed by”
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Brian Eyolfson
Vice-chair
minicounsel