Gemma Veltri v. 1804314 Ontario Ltd. o/a Nonna’s Cucina Ristorante, 2012 HRTO 701

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Gemma Veltri

Applicant

-and-

1804314 Ontario Ltd. o/a Nonna’s Cucina Ristorante

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: April 5, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 701 Indexed as: Veltri v. 1804314 Ontario Ltd.

1This is an Application filed June 11, 2009, under section 34 of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The application alleges that the respondent, for whom she worked, discriminated against her on the basis of sex (pregnancy). The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for April 5, 2012.

Order Adjourning

2The respondent did not appear at the hearing. I adjourned it until sometime after mid-July, the particular date to be set by the Registrar, and the following are my reasons.

Reasons

3In reviewing all documents filed by the respondent, I noted at the hearing that the respondent’s representative, Frank Buonpensiero of Hotline to HR Inc., did not indicate a law society number on the Response despite the appearance that he is not a lawyer. I noted that he might not be permitted to represent a party before the Tribunal. The applicant did not know whether he met the requirements of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

4Rule 1 stipulates:

1.14. Parties may be self-represented, represented by a person licensed by the Law Society of Upper Canada or by a person authorized to provide legal services in accordance with the Law Society Act and its regulations and by-laws.

5I also noted my concern that the respondent may not be receiving correspondence sent by the Tribunal to its representative, Mr. Buonpensiero. My concern is caused by the following factors:

• The respondent did not appear at the mediation scheduled by the Tribunal. Mr. Buonpensiero then wrote the Tribunal an e-mail stating, "Please accept my apologies for not attending… I inadvertently scheduled the hearing [mediation] date incorrectly in my calendar. In efforts to not disappoint my client and to have an opportunity to plea [sic] our case I was would [sic] ask if at all possible a date could be rescheduled into this matter. If there are any cost [sic] incurred for Miss Veltri to re-attend a hearing, such as parking, gas or loss of wages I would be willing to compensate her for such." (Another mediation was not scheduled).
• The respondent did not comply with disclosure requirements specifically referenced in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing sent to the respondent’s representative, Mr. Buonpensiero.
• The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction dated March 9, 2012 ("the CAD"), and sent it to Mr. Buonpensiero, ordering the respondent to comply with disclosure requirements within 10 days. The respondent did not comply and no documents or summaries of what witnesses would say were filed prior to the hearing.
• The respondent did not appear at the hearing.
• The Tribunal has not received any written notice from Mr. Buonpensiero that he ceases to represent the respondent as would be required under Rule 1.15 of a representative licensed by the Law Society if he or she were no longer representing a party.

6Given my concerns, I proposed to the applicant that the hearing be adjourned so that the Tribunal might deliver this Interim Decision, the CAD and a new Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to both Mr. Buonpensiero and to the respondent directly. The applicant took no position on my proposal, but requested that the new hearing be scheduled after she and her family move houses at the end of June.

7The hearing is adjourned. The Tribunal will set a new date in the latter part of July or later. The respondent must file all documents pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 and as described in the CAD at least 45 days in advance of the next hearing date.

8I am not seized.