HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Theresa Boyer
Applicant
-and-
Robinson Solutions Inc. and General Motors of Canada Limited
Respondents
-and-
Teamsters Local 938
Affected Party
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Boyer v. Robinson Solutions 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.
2In her Application the applicant identified a respondent JLL.
3The HRTO issued a Notice of Application and attempted to deliver the Application to the respondents, General Motors & JLL named in the Application at the address provided in the Application. General Motors of Canada Limited has indicated that JLL and General Motors of Canada Limited are two separate entities and it is unclear if they have received the application
4In correspondence dated September 6, 2013 the applicant’s attention was drawn to Rules 6.6 (a) and (b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure:
6.6 An Application accepted by the HRTO for processing:
a) will be sent by the HRTO to the Respondent(s), and to any trade union, occupational or professional organization identified in the Application, at the addresses provided in the Application; or
b) will not be dealt with in respect of a Respondent or a trade union, occupational or professional organization that cannot be contacted in accordance with paragraph (a) above, and the Applicant will be so advised; […].
5The applicant was advised that the Tribunal could not process the Application as against JLL and directed the applicant as follows:
a. within 20 days of the date of this Notice, provide current, complete and accurate addresses for the respondent and explain the steps taken to ensure that the address is current, complete and accurate; and
b. if you believe that the address previously provided in your Application is in fact current, complete and accurate contact information for the respondent, provide the reasons for that belief and the steps taken to verify that the address is current, complete and accurate.
6The applicant has not responded to these Directions nor communicated with the Tribunal about this issue. Previous decisions of the HRTO in Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347, and Osman v. Elle Productions Security, 2009 HRTO 1426, have explained that it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide and in some cases confirm accurate contact information. The Tribunal may dismiss an Application if it is unable to contact the respondent.
7In all of the circumstances the Application as it relates to JLL is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of October, 2013.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair