Mondor v. Peterborough Housing Corporation, 2012 HRTO 607

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jordan Mondor

Applicant

-and-

Peterborough Housing Corporation, Laurena Peterson,

Phillip Peterson, Deborah McIlmoyle and James Quinn

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: March 23, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 607

Indexed as: Mondor v. Peterborough Housing Corporation

1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, sexual orientation and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Initially, she named no respondents. By email dated December 7, 2010, the applicant indicated that she wished to name seven individual respondents and the organizational respondent.

REMOVAL OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS

2The Application was served on the respondents. The organizational respondent filed a Response, as did four of the seven individual respondents. Prior to issuing a “no response” Interim Decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant, in a March 9, 2011 Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), to particularize her allegations against the individual respondents.

3The applicant filed a document on May 2, 2011, in which she particularizes her allegations against the individual respondents. A subsequent CAD, dated May 20, 2011, addressed the issue of the applicant’s inability to serve the May 2, 2011 document on some of the individual respondents.

4The second CAD also directed the applicant to advise whether she wished to continue against two of the named individuals, Brenda Quinn and Larry Pollack. The applicant advised that she did not wish to proceed against Ms. Quinn and Mr. Pollack and the style of cause has been amended accordingly.

5In addition, the applicant advised that was unable to provide a valid address for Neil Harrietha, one of the seven named individual respondents. Although the applicant has suspicions that Mr. Harrietha is aware of the Application, her inability to provide a valid address, coupled with his failure to respond to the Application, means that the Tribunal cannot be assured that he has had notice of the Application. It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide a valid address for anyone she wishes to name as a respondent to her Application. Accordingly, Neil Harrietha will be removed as an individual respondent and the style of cause amended to reflect this removal.

NO RESPONSE FROM ONE OF THE RESPONDENTS

6Of the remaining respondents, James Quinn is the only individual to have failed to file a Response to the Application.

7An 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. The 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.

8The applicant has provided an address for the respondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondent by regular mail and courier.

9If Mr. Quinn wishes to participate in this proceeding, he shall file a Response by April 13, 2012, 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 respondent and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

ORDER/DIRECTIONS

10In sum, I have made the following orders/directions:

a. At the request of the applicant, Brenda Quinn and Larry Pollack are removed as respondents to this Application;

b. Neil Harrietha is removed as respondent to this Application; and

c. James Quinn is directed to file a Response to this Application by April 13, 2012, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the Notice of Application.

11I am not seized of this matter.