Langford v. NSI Retail Inc., 2013 HRTO 1519

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rebecca Langford

Applicant

-and-

NSI Retail Inc. and William Sandre

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: September 10, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1519

Indexed as: Langford v. NSI Retail Inc.

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex.

2On February 4, 2013 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer (“NOID”) this Application pending the conclusion of the determination of a claim made by the applicant under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”). Before this issue was addressed the applicant advised that the other proceeding had concluded.

3The NOID sent to the respondents was returned to the Tribunal. On the returned mail someone had written – Moved – indicating that the business in which the applicant had been employed has moved. The Tribunal delivered the NOID to the individual respondent at the same address and it was similarly returned with the note indicating that this individual had moved. Subsequent correspondence sent to the addresses for the respondents on file have been returned to the Tribunal with the notation moved on the material. In the decision of the employment standards officer dealing with the applicant’s ESA claim it was determined that the business in which the applicant had been employed was closed in August 2012.

4The applicant had asserted that she had information indicating that the personal respondent had closed the company she worked for, the organizational respondent above, but opened a similar business under the name Retail Services Group Inc. operating out of the same location as NSI Retail Inc. The applicant provided an address for this entity in North Carolina.

5In a Case Assessment Direction issued on April 25, 2013 the applicant was directed to find alternative contact information for the personal respondent. The applicant wrote to the Tribunal indicating that she is unable to provide alternative contact information. In a Case Assessment Direction issued on May 21, 2013 the following Directions were made:

a. The preliminary hearing scheduled to take place on June 26, 2013 is cancelled.

b. The applicant may, within 60 days of the date of this Direction, provide evidence that the personal respondent is working or operating a business at the address currently on file with the Tribunal. This could be in the form of a sworn statement or affidavit of someone with personal knowledge that the personal respondent can be contacted at that address.

c. The applicant may also attempt to deliver a copy of the Applications and each of the Case Assessment Directions issued in this case to date and provide proof of personal delivery to him on a Form 23;

d. The Tribunal will hold this file open for a further 60 days in order to allow the applicant further time to locate the personal respondent.

6A copy of these Directions was sent to the respondents at the addresses currently on file with the Tribunal. A copy was also sent to the Retail Services Group Inc. in North Carolina.

7The applicant has not provided any further information in response to these Directions. Accordingly, at this stage, and for the reasons above, I am not satisfied that there has been effective notice of the Application to either respondent. I am also satisfied that the applicant has had an opportunity to cure this defect. In the circumstances, it would be procedurally unfair to proceed and the Application is dismissed for this reason.

8I am not seized of this case.