Archer v. Green Earth Environmental Products, 2012 HRTO 70

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yvonne Archer Applicant

-and-

Green Earth Environmental Products Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: January 12, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 70 Indexed as: Archer v. Green Earth Environmental Products

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 May 17, 2011, alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin and association with a person identified by a Code ground.

BACKGROUND

2The Application originally named an individual respondent and a corporate respondent, "Green Earth Stores". Copies of the Application were sent to both respondents care of the corporate respondent's retail address as provided by the applicant.

3The respondent filed a Response on August 8, 2011, wherein it noted that the proper name of the corporate respondent is "Green Earth Environmental Products". The Response indicated that the individual respondent did not receive a copy of the Application because the individual respondent is no longer employed with the corporate respondent. The individual respondent's copy of the Application was returned to the Tribunal.

4On August 30, 2011, the Tribunal issued a letter to the applicant delivering the Response and requiring the applicant to confirm an address for the individual respondent in order to affect delivery of the Application. The Tribunal's letter directed the applicant to provide, on or before September 19, 2011, written confirmation of a current, complete and accurate address for the individual respondent or an explanation of the steps the applicant has undertaken to verify that the address she previously provided to the Tribunal was an accurate address.

5On September 19, 2011, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal and advised that at the time she provided the address for the individual respondent, specifically, the address of the corporate respondent's retail location, the address was accurate because the individual respondent was employed by the corporate respondent. The applicant submitted that the corporate respondent would have the individual respondent's current address for income tax purposes.

6On October 4, 2011, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant indicating that if the applicant was seeking the corporate respondent to produce information as to the individual respondent's address, the applicant was required to file a Form 10 Request for Order During Proceedings. The Tribunal received no communication or correspondence from the applicant.

7On December 15, 2011, the Tribunal again wrote the applicant and reminded that if the applicant was seeking the corporate respondent to provide information as to the individual respondent's address, the applicant was required to file a Form 10 Request for Order During Proceedings. The Tribunal indicated that if the applicant intended to make such a request she should file her request on or before December 22, 2011 or the Tribunal may decide to dismiss the Application as against the individual respondent.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

8The applicant has not corresponded or communicated with the Tribunal since September 19, 2011 and has not filed a Form 10 Request for Order During Proceedings.

9Rule 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.

10In the present case, the Application was mailed to the individual respondent at the corporate respondent's address (as provided by the applicant) and these materials were eventually returned unopened. The corporate respondent has subsequently confirmed that the individual respondent is no longer employed by it and that its Response was filed solely on behalf of the corporate entity.

11It appears that the contact information provided by the applicant for the individual respondent is incorrect. As 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.

12The applicant has failed to provide the Tribunal with accurate contact information for the individual respondent as requested by the Tribunal in its letters to the applicant dated August 30, 2011, October 4, 2011 and December 15, 2011.

13In accordance with Rule 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.

ORDER

14The Application is amended to identify the corporate respondent by its proper name, Green Earth Environmental Products. The Application is dismissed as against the individual respondent. The style of cause is amended to reflect these orders. Since the parties have indicated that they are amenable to participating in mediation, the Tribunal will schedule a mediation in this matter.

15I am not seized.