Miki Shinozaki v. 2252419 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. Hotlomi Spa, 2013 HRTO 2023

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Miki Shinozaki

Applicant

-and-

2252419 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. Hotlomi Spa

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: December 6, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 2023

Indexed as: Shinozaki v. 2252419 Ontario Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Miki Shinozaki, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This Decision addresses the applicant’s request to correct the name of the respondent in the Tribunal’s June 7, 2013 Decision in this matter. That decision referred to the respondent as “Hotlomi Spa”, which is the respondent’s registered business name and the name it used in its dealings with the applicant (i.e. on paycheques, etc.). The applicant requests that the Tribunal amend its Decision to reflect the respondent’s corporation name as well as its registered business name so that she can have the Tribunal’s Decision, and the orders contained therein, enforced through the court.

BACKGROUND

2By Decision dated June 7, 2013, the Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant because of her sex, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”); and made certain orders to remedy the discrimination: 2013 HRTO 1027. In particular, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the applicant with certain monetary compensation within 30 days of the date of this Decision. It also ordered the respondent to implement certain human rights training and to post Code cards in the workplace, also within 30 days of the date of the Decision.

3The respondent did not participate in the hearing of this Application. The respondent failed to file a Response to the Application, despite being directed to do so by the Tribunal in the March 15, 2012 Notice of Application and a May 4, 2012 Interim Decision. Accordingly, in an Interim Decision dated May 25, 2012, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have waived its rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding, and directed that the hearing of the Application would proceed without the participation of the respondent. In addition, pursuant to Rule 5.5(a) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the respondent was deemed to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application: 2012 HRTO 1048.

4On July 29, 2013, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal, advising that the respondent had not complied with any of the remedial orders in the Tribunal’s June 7, 2013 Decision.

5On September 27, 2013, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal again. The applicant advised that she had attempted to have the Tribunal’s June 2013 order enforced through the sheriff. However, she was advised that the Tribunal’s order could not be enforced unless it was amended to reflect the respondent’s corporation name (2252419 Ontario Inc.), as opposed to its registered business name (Hotlomi Spa). The applicant states that she attempted to have the Tribunal’s order amended in court. However, the court advised her that only the Tribunal could amend its Decision. Accordingly, the applicant requests that the Tribunal amend the name of the respondent in its June 7, 2013 Decision to identify it by its corporation name as well as its registered business name, “2252419 Ontario Inc. aka Hotlomi Spa”.

6The applicant has filed a number of corporate search documents in support of her request. In particular, the applicant has filed a Business Names Report, generated pursuant to the Business Names Act/Limited Partnerships Act, that confirms that “Hotlomi Spa” is a business name registered under the Business Names Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.17, and that the “corporation name” of the business operating as Hotlomi Spa is “2252419 Ontario Inc.”

7The Business Names Report, produced in September 2013 by the Registrar of the Ontario Ministry of Government Services, also confirms that the head office of 2252419 Ontario Inc., operating as Hotlomi Spa, is located at the address to which the Tribunal delivered a copy of the Application on March 15, 2012, as well as a number of decisions in this matter (its May 4, 2012 Interim Decision, directing the respondent to file a Response to the Application; the May 25, 2012 Interim Decision finding that the respondent had waived its rights to notice or participation in the proceeding; a July 13, 2012 Case Assessment Direction; and the final Decision of June 7, 2013, finding that the respondent had infringed the applicant’s rights under the Code and ordering it to do certain things, by way of remedy.)

DECISION AND ANALYSIS

8The Tribunal has the power, pursuant to s. 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c S.22 (“SPPA”), to correct typographical errors, errors of calculation or similar errors in its decisions or orders. Moreover, according to the wording of s. 21.1, this is a power that the Tribunal may exercise “at any time”.

9Based on the information before me, I am satisfied that the name of the respondent in the Tribunal’s June 7, 2013 Decision and orders in this matter ought to be corrected to include the respondent’s corporation name, pursuant to s.21.1 of the SPPA.

10The fact that the Tribunal’s June 7, 2013 Decision referred to the respondent by its registered business name “Hotlomi Spa” only, and not its corporation name, was not a typographical error or error of calculation. However, it was “similar” in the sense that the omission of the corporation name was a technical deficiency only. There is no doubt, based on the information before me, that 2252419 Ontario Inc. and Hotlomi Spa are one and the same. 2252419 Ontario Inc. is simply the corporation name of the business that operates as “Hotlomi Spa”, which business entity was found to have infringed the applicant’s rights under the Code in the Tribunal’s June 7, 2013 Decision in this matter. In my view, it is appropriate to rectify this technical deficiency in the respondent’s name pursuant to the Tribunal’s power under s.21.1 of the SPPA.

11In the alternative, quite apart from the above-noted statutory authority, in my view, the Tribunal is entitled to correct the name of the corporate respondent in its final Decision in respect of this Application pursuant to its power to revisit its decisions in order to correct an error that was made in expressing the manifest intention of the Tribunal: Chandler v. Alberta association of architects, 1989 CanLII 41 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 848; Nova Scotia Government and General Employees Union v. Capital District Health Authority, 2006 NSCA 85.

12The manifest intention of the Tribunal in rendering its June 7, 2013 Decision was to find that the corporate entity that had employed the applicant infringed the applicant's rights under the Code and to order it to provide the applicant with certain remedies. By correcting the name of the respondent to reflect not only its registered business name but also its corporation name, the Tribunal is merely correcting an error that was made in expressing its manifest intention in its June 7, 2013 Decision, as it is entitled to do. (See also Grzesiak v. 1263699 Ontario Limited (formerly DOT Benefits Corp.), 2013 HRTO 1.)

13In sum, I find it appropriate to correct the name of the respondent to “2252419 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. Hotlomi Spa” pursuant to the Tribunal’s power under s.21.1 of the SPPA to correct errors that are similar in nature to typographical errors or errors of calculation. In the alternative, I find it appropriate to correct the name of the respondent to “2252419 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. Hotlomi Spa” pursuant to the Tribunal’s power to correct an error that was made in expressing the manifest intention in its June 7, 2013 Decision and orders.

ORDER

14The Tribunal orders that the name of the respondent in the Tribunal’s Decision in 2013 HRTO 1027, issued on June 7, 2013, is corrected to read “2252419 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. Hotlomi Spa”.