minicounsel

Julie Costigane v. Nyood Restaurant and Arturo Gayle, 2013 HRTO 271 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

February 15, 2013

Julie Costigane v. Nyood Restaurant and Arturo Gayle, 2013 HRTO 271

Case Summary

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate and personal respondents. The corporate respondent filed a response and provided a new address for the personal respondent. The personal respondent failed to file a response by the revised deadline. The Tribunal issued an interim decision providing the personal respondent with a final 14 days to file a response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to him pursuant to Rule 5.5.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Julie Costigane

Applicant

-and-

Nyood Restaurant and Arturo Gayle

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 15, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 271

Indexed as: Costigane v. Nyood Restaurant

[1] The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on July 9, 2012.

[2] On September 7, 2012 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondents. The respondents were advised that they must file a Response to the Application with the Tribunal by no later than October 12, 2012.

[3] On November 19, 2012 the corporate respondent filed a Response to the Application and provided a personal address for the personal respondent at that time. The application was re-served on the personal respondent, Mr. Gayle, at the new address and he was advised that he must file a Response to the Application with the Tribunal by no later than the revised deadline of January 10, 2013.

[4] As of the date of this Interim Decision the personal respondent has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to him been returned.

[5] An application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding. A finding that a violation of the Code has occurred may lead to various orders, including monetary compensation, other forms of restitution to the applicant, and orders to take action to promote compliance with the Code. Failure to file a response or participate in a Tribunal proceeding may lead to orders against respondents without their participation. The personal respondent’s attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which reads 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.

[6] The Tribunal has a mailing address and email address for the personal respondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the personal respondent at that address by regular mail and courier.

[7] If the personal respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, a Response must be filed with the Tribunal no later than 14 days from the date of this Interim Decision together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the Notice of Application. If a Response is not received, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the personal respondent and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

[8] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 15^th^ day of February, 2013.

“signed by”

Naomi Overend

Vice-chair