HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Amany Hanna

Applicant

-and-

A and 2M Drugs Limited and Amir Besada

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: February 1, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 231

Indexed as: Hanna v. A and 2M Drugs

[1] The purpose of this Interim Decision is to direct the corporate respondent to file a Response.

OVERVIEW

[2] The applicant filed this Application on June 14, 2011, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of family status, marital status and reprisal. The applicant states that she worked as a pharmacist for the respondents. In essence, she alleges that the personal respondent is in a conflict with her husband and this conflict resulted in the respondents “treating her badly” in her work environment.

[3] In the Application, the applicant provides the same address for both the corporate respondent and the personal respondent. The Tribunal delivered a copy of the Application to the each of the respondents at this address.

[4] As of the date of this Interim Decision, the corporate respondent has not filed a Response and the time for doing so under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure has elapsed. The Tribunal’s correspondence to the corporate respondent has not been returned.

[5] The personal respondent has filed a Response in which he denies the allegations of discrimination. He states that he is a minority shareholder of the respondent corporation. He disputes that he employed the applicant or had any involvement in the management or operation of the corporate respondent at the material times. The personal respondent also seeks the deferral of the Application pending the determination of a civil suit in Court File No. CV-11-9397-00CL.

[6] In a Case Assessment Direction (‘CAD”) dated December 15, 2011, the Tribunal directed the personal respondent to advise the Tribunal and the other parties in writing whether he has delivered the Application to the corporate respondent or whether he otherwise believes the corporate respondent to have received these documents. In response to the CAD, the personal respondent indicated that he had not delivered the Application to the corporate respondent.

[7] In the CAD, the Tribunal also invited the applicant to provide any additional contact information she has for the corporate respondent. In response, the applicant has provided the address of a director of the corporate respondent. However, she reiterates that the address provided in the Application is the corporate respondent’s address.

REQUIREMENT TO FILE A RESPONSE

[8] In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the corporate respondent has been served with a copy of the Application.

[9] A Tribunal application is a legal proceeding and, if a violation of the Code is found, it 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 corporate respondent without its participation.

[10] The corporate respondent’s attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which states:

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.