Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Lorraine Harvey
Applicant
-and-
Newtek Automotive Distribution Inc. and Jane Wu
Respondents
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: December 11, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2318 Indexed as: Harvey v. Newtek Automotive Distribution Inc.
Introduction
1This is an Application for Contravention of Settlement filed under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondents have failed to file a Response, notwithstanding having received notice of the Application. As a result, the Tribunal will proceed without the participation of the respondents.
Background
2The Application was filed on June 5, 2012 and sent to the respondents on June 6, 2012. Because the respondent did not file a Response within 14 days as required by the Tribunal’s Rules, the Tribunal issued a “no response decision” 2012 HRTO 1959 directing that a response be filed by October 30, 2012 and advising of the consequences for failure to respond. The respondents did not file a Response as required by the Rules or as directed in the Interim Decision.
Decision
3In Kearns v. 1327827 Ontario, 2009 HRTO 457, at paragraphs 11 – 14, the Tribunal set out its approach in circumstances where a respondent fails to file a Response after having been cautioned, and the rationale for that approach:
- The Code is an important public statute which enshrines our most basic and fundamental rights and freedoms. The enforcement procedures in the Code are equally important, since without an effective means of claiming a violation of a right, and seeking redress where a violation is found, those fundamental human rights would have little meaning.
- The procedures established by the Tribunal’s Rules provide a mechanism to resolve disputes arising under the Code fairly and expeditiously. An individual who believes his or her rights have been infringed may bring an Application. That Application must be complete and set out the allegations which, in the applicant’s view, constitute a violation of the Code. Before serving an Application on the person or organization named as a respondent, the Tribunal will review the Application to ensure that it is complete and that it appears to be within the jurisdiction of the Code.
- Once served with an Application, if the respondent wishes to participate and defend against the claim made by the applicant, the respondent has only to file a Response. The Tribunal provides a respondent with clear notice of what is required, and has prepared a Guide which assists a respondent in completing its Response. The Response also provides a respondent with an opportunity to indicate which facts or allegations in the Application are agreed to, and which are disputed.
- A respondent who refuses, or chooses not to file a Response should not be able to frustrate the objects of the Code, and the applicant’s right to assert a claim and seek a timely determination of that claim. Section 40 of the Code requires the Tribunal to dispose of Applications in a way which will provide for “a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the application.” Where no Response is filed, in order to fulfill this statutory mandate, the Tribunal will proceed to determine the Application in the absence of the respondent. In all but the rarest of cases, the Tribunal will deem the respondent to have waived its right to participate pursuant to Rule 5.5(c) and deem the respondent to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application pursuant to Rule 5.5(a).
4The Tribunal went on to explain that, for several reasons, it will not generally make an order under Rule 5.5(d), without first providing the applicant an opportunity to indicate whether he or she wishes to file further materials and make oral submissions.
5I am satisfied the respondents have received notice of the Application and the decision of the Tribunal directing them to file their Response. The respondents refuse, or have chosen not, to participate in these proceedings.
6For the reasons set out above, I make the following order:
- The respondents are deemed to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application;
- The respondents are deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation in these proceedings; and
- Within 3 weeks of this decision the applicant may submit any additional document he wishes the Tribunal to consider in deciding this Application.
7The applicant is asked to advise the Registrar by December 31, 2012 whether she wishes to make oral submissions, and whether she wishes to provide submissions by way of teleconference or in person.
8I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of December, 2012.
”signed by”
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair