minicounsel

Peter Stopyn v. United Association of Plumbing & Pipefitting Union Local 67, 2012 HRTO 521 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

March 13, 2012

Peter Stopyn v. United Association of Plumbing & Pipefitting Union Local 67, 2012 HRTO 521

Case Summary

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code. The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application. The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the potential consequences of failing to participate, including the possibility of the Tribunal proceeding without them under Rule 5.5. The respondents were granted a final 10 days to file a Response and provide an explanation for the delay.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peter Stopyn Applicant

-and-

United Association of Plumbing & Pipefitting Union Local 67 and Leslie Ellerker Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: March 13, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 521

Indexed as: Stopyn v. United Association of Plumbing & Pipefitting Union Local 67

[1] The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on August 16, 2011.

[2] On December 19, 2011 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondents. The respondents were advised that they must file a Response to the Application with the Tribunal by no later than January 23, 2012.

[3] As of the date of this Interim Decision the respondents have not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to them been returned.

[4] An 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 respondents without their participation. The personal and corporate respondent’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.

[5] The applicant has provided a mailing address for the respondents. The materials provided by the applicant also indicate a facsimile number for the respondents. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondents at that facsimile number and address by regular mail and courier.

[6] If the respondents wish to participate in this proceeding, a Response must be filed with the Tribunal no later than ten days from 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 respondents and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

[7] The respondents are directed to indicate in the Response whether they wish to participate in a mediation session.

[8] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 13^th^ day of March, 2012.

“Signed by”

Ena Chadha

Vice-chair