Berahmand v. B2B Trust, 2012 HRTO 788

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

BETWEEN:

Behnoosh Berahmand Applicant

-and-

B2B Trust and David Monk Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: April 19, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 788 Indexed as: Berahmand v. B2B Trust

1The applicant filed this Application on May 20, 2011, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination, sexual solicitation/advances and reprisal in the area of employment on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, disability, creed and sex.

2The Notice of Application was delivered to the corporate respondent and the personal respondent care of the corporate respondent’s address.

3On July 12, 2011, the corporate respondent filed a Response and advised that the personal respondent no longer worked for the corporate respondent.

4The Tribunal attempted to deliver the Application to the personal respondent at the alternate contact address provided by the applicant; however, the package containing the Notice of Application was returned as “not at this address”.

5A mediation in this matter is scheduled for May 25, 2012.

6On January 11, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking that the corporate respondent be required to provide the last known address for the personal respondent and his middle name and/or social insurance number so that the Notice of Application can be delivered to him.

7On April 13, 2012, the corporate respondent filed a response to the applicant’s Request indicating that “due to corporate and personal privacy concerns” it could not consent to the order sought, but would not oppose the request and make best efforts to comply with any order made by the Tribunal.

8The corporate respondent has confirmed that the personal respondent was no longer an employee at the time the Notice of Application was delivered and, therefore, he did not receive his copy of the Application.

9The Tribunal has in previous decisions required corporate respondents to provide last known addresses for personal respondents, no longer in the company’s employ. See: Grant v. Dura Automotive Systems of Canada, 2009 HRTO 10; Letourneau v. Jenny Craig Canada, 2011 HRTO 342 and Khudabaksh v. Optima Communications International Inc., 2012 HRTO 35.

10Rule 1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedures states that the Tribunal may:

Require a party or other person to produce any document, information or thing and to provide such assistance as is reasonably necessary, including using any date storage, processing or retrieval device of system, to produce the information in any form. (See also s. 43(3) of the Code.)

11In the circumstances of this case, I find it is appropriate to require the corporate respondent to provide personal respondent David Monk’s last known address and middle name in order to facilitate delivery of the Application. I decline to order the corporate respondent to disclose the personal respondent’s social insurance number.

ORDER

12The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. Within 5 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the corporate respondent is directed to provide in writing to the applicant and to the Tribunal the last known address of David Monk and, if known, David Monk’s middle name, following which the Tribunal will deliver the Notice of Application to David Monk, Notice of Mediation and other materials filed in the Application at the address provided; and
2. The mediation scheduled for May 25 will proceed and the Tribunal will deal with any outstanding issues regarding notice to the personal respondent following mediation if necessary.

13I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of April, 2012.

”signed by”

Ena Chadha Vice-chair