Bhol v. Coca Cola Refreshments Canada Company, 2013 HRTO 1379

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zuber Bhol

Applicant

-and-

Coca-Cola Refreshments Canada Company, Iowanna Chis, Cem Erim and Mike LeClair

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: August 12, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1379 Indexed as: Bhol v. Coca Cola Refreshments Canada Company

1The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on June 16, 2011.

2The Application was subsequently deferred pending the conclusion of a union grievance that had been referred to in the Application.

3On January 15, 2013, the Applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“the Request”) seeking to reactivate the Application. Prior to sending out the Request, the applicant provided a current mailing address for the individual respondent Iowanna Chis (“the respondent Chis”). The Tribunal sent the Request to all of the respondents, including the respondent Chis at her current mailing address.

4On February 19, 2013, the respondents Coca Cola Refreshments Canada Company, Cem Erim and Mike LeClair filed a Response to the Request opposing reactivation. The respondent Chis did not file a Response to the Request nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to it been returned.

5The Tribunal subsequently issued an Interim Decision dated May 29, 2013 granting the applicant’s request to reactivate and ordering the respondents to file a full response within 35 days of the date of the Decision. The Interim Decision was sent to all respondents, including the respondent Chis.

6On July 3, 2013, the respondents Coca Cola Refreshments Canada Company, Cem Erim and Mike LeClair filed a response to the reactivation of the Application. As of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent Chis has not filed a response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to it been returned.

7An 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. The respondent Chis' 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.

8The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondent Chis by regular mail at her current mailing address.

9If the respondent Chis wishes to participate in this proceeding, the respondent Chis shall file a Response with the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, together with an explanation of why the 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 the respondent Chis and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

10I am not seized of this matter.