Franco Pagulayan v. Hilton Garden Inn Toronto Downtown, 2012 HRTO 2205

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Franco Pagulayan

Applicant

-and-

Hilton Garden Inn Toronto Downtown, Sally J. Ifill, Aaron Mokrey and Tamara Magalhaes

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: November 26, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2205

Indexed as: Pagulayan v. Hilton Garden Inn Toronto Downtown

1The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), on June 11, 2012.

2On June 21, 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 26, 2012. By way of letter dated July 20, 2012 an extension of the time to file a response was granted to all the respondents until August 9, 2012.

3On August 9, 2012 the corporate respondent filed a Response to the Application on its own behalf and on behalf of all the personal respondents except for Ms. Tamara Magalhaes. The corporate respondent advised that Ms. Magalhaes no longer works for the corporate respondent and it provided the Tribunal with her last known address. On October 3, 2012 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to Ms. Magalhaes at this address. Ms. Magalhaes was directed that a Response to the Application must be filed with the Tribunal not later than November 7, 2012.

4As of the date of this Interim Decision Ms. Magalhaes has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal's correspondence to her 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. Ms. Magalhaes'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 corporate respondent has provided an address for the personal respondent, Ms. Magalhaes. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to her by regular mail and courier.

7If the personal respondent, Ms. Magalhaes, wishes to participate in this proceeding, she shall file a Response with the Tribunal within 14 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 of October 3, 2012. If a Response is not received, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to her and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

8The responding parties have indicated their consent to engage in mediation and the Registrar will schedule a mediation in the normal course. In the Response, Ms. Magalhaes is asked to indicate whether she also wishes to participate in the mediation session.

9I am not seized of this matter.