HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Fabiola Lema Applicant
-and-
Appliance Canada, a Division of Leon’s Furniture Limited Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: March 13, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 515 Indexed as: Lema v. Appliance Canada
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on October 31, 2011.
2The Application originally named an individual respondent and a corporate respondent. Copies of the Application were sent to both respondents care of the corporate respondent’s address as provided by the applicant.
3On December 20, 2011, counsel for the corporate respondent wrote to the Tribunal advising that the individual respondent is no longer employed with the corporate respondent and, therefore, the Application was not delivered to the individual respondent.
4The applicant was copied on this correspondence. On December 23, 2011, the Tribunal asked the applicant to provide an alternate address for the individual respondent.
5The corporate respondent filed its Response on January 30, 2012.
6On February 13, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Requirement to Confirm Address for Delivery (“Notice”) to the applicant indicating that the Tribunal was unable to proceed with delivering the Application to the individual respondent at the address the applicant had provided because the individual respondent was no longer employed by the corporate respondent. The Tribunal’s Notice directed the applicant to provide, within 20 days, written confirmation of a current, complete, and accurate address for the individual respondent. The Notice stated that if the applicant did not provide the requisite information the Tribunal may decide to dismiss the Application.
7The applicant did not correspond or communicate with the Tribunal with respect to the requisite contact information as required by the Tribunal’s Notice.
8Rule 6.6(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal will not deal with an application in respect of a respondent who cannot be contacted at the contact information provided by the applicant.
9In the present case, the Application was mailed to the individual respondent at the corporate respondent’s address (as provided by the applicant); however, the corporate respondent subsequently confirmed that the individual respondent is no longer employed by it and that the individual respondent did not receive the Application.
10It appears that individual respondent cannot be contacted at the address provided by the applicant, and no other address has been provided by the applicant despite the Tribunal’s directions to do so.
11As explained by the Tribunal in Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347, while the Tribunal forwards completed applications to respondents, it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide accurate contact information, and the Tribunal relies on applicants to provide a correct address for respondents named in their applications. Generally, in such cases, applicants explain what efforts were undertaken to find and verify a current address and explain why the contact information is believed to be the complete, accurate, and the most recent address.
12The applicant has failed to provide the Tribunal with accurate contact information for the individual respondent as requested by the Tribunal in its Notice dated February 13, 2012 and has failed to communicate with the Tribunal in this regard.
13Rule 5.3 states that the Tribunal may decide not to deal with an application that is not filed in compliance with the Tribunal’s Rules. As such, since the applicant has not provided the Tribunal with the individual respondent’s proper contact information, the Tribunal may not proceed with the Application as against the individual respondent.
14In accordance with Rules 5.3 and 6.6(b), the Tribunal dismisses the Application as against the individual respondent. The applicant has been unable to satisfy the Tribunal that the contact information provided for the individual respondent was valid and that it permitted effective notice to the individual respondent.
15The Application is dismissed as against the individual respondent and the style of cause is amended to reflect the same.
16I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 13^th^ day of March, 2012.
”signed by”__________________
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair