Defillat v. D’Arcy Lane Incorporated, 2013 HRTO 1747

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sandra Defillat

Applicant

-and-

D’Arcy Lane Incorporated and Vivian Cywink (Peters)

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: October 17, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1747

Indexed as: Defillat v. D’Arcy Lane Incorporated

Introduction

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 race.

2The respondent, D’Arcy Lane Incorporated (“the corporate respondent”), filed a Response and advised that the personal respondent no longer works for it and that the Response was not filed on her behalf.

3The Tribunal e-mailed the applicant on October 7, 2013, asking for an alternate address for the personal respondent. The applicant responded that she did not have one.

analysis and decision

4As noted in Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347 (“Guild”), while the Tribunal delivers completed applications to respondents, it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide accurate contact information and the Tribunal relies on applicants to provide a correct address for respondents named in their applications.

5Rule 6.6(b) provides that the Tribunal will not deal with an application in respect of a respondent who cannot be contacted at the contact information provided by the applicant. As such, where the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that a respondent has received notice of an application, it may not deal with the application or may require an applicant to take additional steps to satisfy the Tribunal that the contact information provided will permit effective notice to the respondent. Generally, in such cases, the applicant will be required to explain what efforts were undertaken to find and verify a current address for the respondent, and explain why this contact information is believed to be the “most recent address”, see Guild, above.

6In the present case, the Application was mailed to the individual respondent at the corporate respondent’s address (as provided by the applicant) and these materials were not returned. However, the corporate respondent has subsequently confirmed that the individual respondent is no longer employed by it and that its Response was filed solely on behalf of the corporate respondent.

7In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that the individual respondent has received notice of the Application. If the applicant wishes to proceed with the Application against the individual respondent, the applicant will be required to make efforts to ascertain an address or contact information at which she can be provided with the Application.

8Consequently, the Tribunal directs that if the applicant wishes to proceed with this Application against the individual respondent, the applicant shall, within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision, provide a current and accurate address for her, and explain the steps taken to ensure that the address is current and accurate.

9If the applicant is unable to find a current and accurate address for the individual respondent, the applicant may wish to request that the Tribunal issue an order pursuant to Rule 1.7(p) requiring the corporate respondent, as the individual respondent’s former employer, to provide the last known address and contact information for her. If such a request were made, the Tribunal would consider the request and determine whether it was appropriate to make such an order.