Idil Abdillahi v. Aldo Group Canada, 2013 HRTO 165

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Idil Abdillahi

Applicant

-and-

Aldo Group Canada

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Decision Date: January 30, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 165

Indexed as: Abdillahi v. Aldo Group Canada

1This is an Interim Decision in respect of an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), filed on October 12, 2012.

2On November 2, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondent in which it directed that a Response to the Application must be filed with the Tribunal not later than December 7, 2012.

3On December 27, 2012, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 2401 (“the first Interim Decision”). The first Interim Decision noted the respondent’s failure to file a Response, and gave the respondent fourteen days to file a Response together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the original Notice of Application. The first Interim Decision quoted Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure:

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.

4The first Interim Decision stated that, if a Response were not received, the Tribunal might proceed without further notice to the respondent and could take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5. The Tribunal sent a copy of the Interim Decision to the respondent by regular mail and courier. As of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to it been returned. I am satisfied the respondent has received notice of the Application and the decision of the Tribunal directing it to file its Response.

5The Tribunal will proceed without the participation of the respondent, deems the respondent to have waived its right to participate pursuant to Rule 5.5(c), and further deems the respondent to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application pursuant to Rule 5.5(a). This Interim Decision, like the foregoing one, will be sent to the respondent.

6Subsection 46.3(1) of the Code provides as follows:

For the purposes of this Act, except subsection 2 (2), subsection 5 (2), section 7 and subsection 46.2 (1), any act or thing done or omitted to be done in the course of his or her employment by an officer, official, employee or agent of a corporation, trade union, trade or occupational association, unincorporated association or employers’ organization shall be deemed to be an act or thing done or omitted to be done by the corporation, trade union, trade or occupational association, unincorporated association or employers’ organization.

7Subsection 45.2 (1) of the Code provides that, if the Tribunal determines that a party to the application has infringed a right under Part I of another party to the Application, it may make the following orders:

1. An order directing the party who infringed the right to pay monetary compensation to the party whose right was infringed for loss arising out of the infringement, including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

2. An order directing the party who infringed the right to make restitution to the party whose right was infringed, other than through monetary compensation, for loss arising out of the infringement, including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

3. An order directing any party to the application to do anything that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the party ought to do to promote compliance with this Act.

8In addition to addressing a successful applicant’s request for order(s), the Tribunal may make an order that has not been requested by the applicant: see s. 45.2(2) of the Code and Payne v. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. et al (2002), 2002 CanLII 46516 (ON HRT), 44 CHRR D/203, Lepofsky v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2007 HRTO 41.

9In reviewing the Application, it appears that the applicant has requested an apology and a public-interest remedy (training for employees of the respondent), as well as compensatory damages. The applicant has given some information relevant to her claim for monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. At this point, the applicant has not been asked to submit the information she has relied upon to quantify her request for monetary compensation for lost time, inability to work and therapeutic support. Before the Tribunal finally determines the Application, the applicant will be given an opportunity file any documents or materials she may wish the Tribunal to consider, and to make oral submissions to a Tribunal adjudicator via teleconference as set out in Rule 5.5.

ORDER

10For the reasons set out above, I make the following order:

• The respondent is deemed to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application;
• The respondent is deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation in these proceedings; and
• Within 21 days of this decision, the applicant may file any additional documents or materials she wishes the Tribunal to consider in deciding this Application. The applicant is asked to advise the Registrar within 21 days whether she wishes to make oral submissions by way of teleconference.

11I am not seized of this matter.