HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mazeline Allen
Applicant
-and-
Sunrise Caribbean Restaurant and Methun Monteiro
Respondents
INTERIM decision
Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson
Indexed as: Allen v. Sunrise Caribbean Restaurant
[1] The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on May 24, 2011. In the Application, the applicant provided an address for the respondents, and indicated that the individual respondent was the contact person for the organizational respondent.
[2] On September 14, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondents. The respondents were advised that a Response (Form 2) must be filed with the Tribunal by October 19, 2011.
[3] In an earlier Interim Decision dated December 11, 2011, 2011 HRTO 2203, the Tribunal noted that the respondents had not filed Responses in accordance with the Notice of Application. The respondents were directed to file Responses by December 19, 2011, together with an explanation of why Responses were not filed in accordance with the deadline contained in the Notice of Application, if they wished to participate in this proceeding.
[4] On December 16, 2011, the individual respondent, Methun Monteiro, filed a Response to the Application, and provided a separate name and address as contact information for the organizational respondent.
[5] On February 27, 2012, the organizational respondent filed an incomplete Response with the Tribunal. By letter dated February 28, 2012, the Tribunal advised the organizational respondent that its Response was not complete and could not be accepted. The organizational respondent was directed to file a complete Response by March 19, 2012.
[6] As of the date of this Interim Decision, the organizational respondent has not filed a complete Response to the Application, despite being directed to do so by the Tribunal.
[7] As the Tribunal explained in its previous Interim Decision, 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 respondents without their participation. The organizational 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.
DIRECTIONS
[8] The contact person for the organizational respondent has confirmed his address with the Tribunal, and has also provided an email address. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the organizational respondent by regular mail and courier at the address the respondents provided for it, and by email.
[9] If the organizational respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, it shall file a complete Response (Form 2) with the Tribunal, within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision, together with an explanation of why a complete Response was not filed as previously directed by the Tribunal. If a Response is not received from the organizational respondent in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the organizational respondent, and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.
[10] I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 10^th^ day of May, 2012.
“signed by”
Brian Eyolfson
Vice-chair