Gloria Stead v. Tim Horton’s, Robbin Hewitt, Andrew Stobbe and Diane Gropp, 2012 HRTO 714

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gloria Stead

Applicant

-and-

Tim Horton’s, Robbin Hewitt, Andrew Stobbe and Diane Gropp

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: April 10, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 714

Indexed as: Stead v. Tim Horton’s

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

2On June 17, 2011 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the named respondents and Deb Armstrong. The respondents were advised that a Response must be filed with the Tribunal by July 22, 2011.

3As of the date of this Interim Decision, responses have been filed by Tim Horton’s and two of the listed individual respondents. The respondents’ Andrew Stobbe and Deb Armstrong have not filed a response nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to them been returned to it.

4On September 26, 2011, the applicant indicated that the address that she got for the respondent Stobbe was the address as set out in the Application. The applicant listed several possible alternative addresses for the respondent Armstrong and stated that she understood this respondent had moved to a town not listed in any of the alternative addresses so “I was unable to get a current address for her.”

5On December 21, 2011, the Tribunal re-delivered the Application to the respondent Stobbe again at the address provided by the applicant. This correspondence has not been returned.

6On December 21, 2011, the Tribunal separately wrote to the applicant about the requirement to confirm an address for delivery to the respondent Armstrong. The Tribunal stated:

The HRTO draws your attention to Rule 6.6(a) and (b) of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure:

6.6 An Application accepted by the Tribunal for processing:

a) will be sent by the Tribunal to the Respondent(s), and to any trade union, occupational or professional organization identified in the Application, at the addresses provided in the Application; or

b) will not be dealt with in respect of a Respondent or a trade union, occupational or professional organization that cannot be contacted in accordance with paragraph (a) above, and the Applicant will be so advised; […].

Previous decisions of the HRTO in Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347 and Osman v. Elle Productions Security, 2009 HRTO 1426 have explained that it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide and in some cases confirm accurate contact information. The HRTO may dismiss an Application if it is unable to contact the respondent.

Further to Rule 6.6(b), the HRTO advises that it cannot deal with your Application in respect of Robbin Hewitt until you take further steps as follows:

(a) by January 10, 2012, provide current, complete and accurate addresses for the respondent – Deb Armstrong and explain the steps taken to ensure that the address is current, complete and accurate; and

(b) if you believe that the address previously provided in your Application is in fact current, complete and accurate contact information for the respondent, provide the reasons for that belief and the steps taken to verify that the address is current, complete and accurate.

The HRTO’s “Applicant’s Guide” provides some examples of how contact information can be found or verified. You may also wish to review the cases noted above, as well as the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure and other Guides to its processes, all available on the HRTO’s website at www.hrto.ca, before responding to this Notice.

If you do not provide the further information requested above, by January 10, 2012, the HRTO may decide to dismiss your Application against Deb Armstrong.

7On January 11, 2012, the applicant confirmed that she had no current address for Ms. Armstrong.

DECISION

8As the applicant has been unable to provide an accurate address for the respondent Armstrong, the Application is dismissed against the respondent Armstrong pursuant to Rule 6.6 (b).

9The respondent Stobbe is reminded that 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 individual and corporate respondents without their participation. Mr. Stobbe’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.

10The applicant has provided an address for Mr. Stobbe. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to Mr. Stobbe by regular mail and courier.

11If Mr. Stobbe wishes to participate in this proceeding, he shall file a Response by April 20, 2012, together with an explanation of why his 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 Mr. Stobbe and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

12As the applicant and respondents who have filed Responses have agreed to mediation, mediation will be scheduled. The respondent Stobbe will be provided with a copy of the Notice of Mediation so that he may attend.

13I am not seized of this matter.