Manu v. Centum Fundamental Incorporated, 2013 HRTO 1595

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joyceline Manu Applicant

-and-

Centum Fundamental Incorporated and Russel Ramolchan Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: September 23, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1595 Indexed as: Manu v. Centrum Fundamental Incorporated

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination and harassment in services in relation to her dealings with the personal respondent concerning a mortgage. The Application was filed on June 14, 2013.

2This Interim Decision deals with various issues regarding the Application.

Related Civil Action

3At the time the Application was filed, the applicant indicated that there was a related civil action arising out of the same factual background as the Application. There was therefore a question about whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with the Application because section 34(11) of the Code provides that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction if there is a related civil action that includes allegations of Code-related discrimination or harassment.

4The applicant subsequently forwarded records from the Court that show that the civil action dealt only with financial irregularities in regard to the applicant's mortgage and did not include allegations of Code-related discrimination or harassment.

5The Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to deal with the Application.

The respondents' failure to file a Response to the Application

6When the Tribunal receives an Application that is within its jurisdiction, a copy of the Application is sent to the respondents. The respondents are then required to file a Response with the Tribunal. A Response is a Tribunal form (Form 2) and it can be accessed from the Tribunal's website: www.hrto.ca or by contacting the Tribunal Registrar.

7In this case, the Application was sent to the respondents at the address provided by the applicant which is the mailing address for the corporate respondent.

8Although a Form 2 Response has not been received, the Tribunal has received emails from Victor Huo, who is the Principal Broker of the corporate respondent. The emails indicate that the personal respondent is no longer employed by the corporate respondent. The emails also indicate that Mr. Huo has attempted to resolve the issues raised in the Application but to date the Tribunal has received no indication that the Application has been settled.

9The Tribunal earlier sent Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 1445 to the parties. It sets out the potential consequences for a respondent who fails to file a Response to an Application. The Interim Decision noted that Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states 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.

10Based on the allegations in the Application, it is clear that it is important that the personal respondent receive the Application and provide a Response. It is not clear that the personal respondent has received the Application.

Directions for the corporate respondent

11The corporate respondent is directed to provide contact for the personal respondent, Russel Ramlochan, or explain why it is unable to do so. This information must be provided to the Tribunal and copied to the applicant's counsel, by October 4, 2013. The Tribunal will then send a copy of the Application to the personal respondent and require him to file a Response.

12The corporate respondent is further directed to file a Form 2 Response on its own behalf, which is available from the Tribunal's website or from the Tribunal Registrar. The information that the respondent has provided in emails to the Tribunal is not a Form 2 Response. The Form 2 Response does provide the respondent with the opportunity to set out its understanding of the allegations.

13If a Form 2 Response is not received from the corporate respondent by October 4, 2013, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the corporate respondent and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.