Chartier v. Allard Interior Systems Inc., 2013 HRTO 642

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sylvain Chartier

Applicant

-and-

Allard Interior Systems Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: April 17, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 642

Indexed as: Chartier v. Allard Interior Systems Inc.

Introduction

1The applicant filed an application dated August 7, 2012 alleging discrimination because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

2On September 7, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondent. The Notice advised the respondent that it was required to file a Response by October 12, 2012.

3On October 25, 2012, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 2037 informing the respondent that it was required to file a Response within 14 days of the Interim Decision together with an explanation as to why it did not file a Response by the deadline.

4The Interim Decision was sent to the respondent by courier at the address provided by the applicant in his Application. The envelope was returned with a note from the courier company saying “no response”.

5On February 28, 2013, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to advise him of the requirement to confirm a correct address for the respondent. The letter stated in part:

The HRTO draws your attention to Rule 6.6(a) and (b) of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure:

6.6 An Application accepted by the Tribunal for processing:

a) will be sent by the Tribunal 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; […].

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 HRTO may dismiss an Application if it is unable to contact the respondent.

Further to Rule 6.6(b), the HRTO advises that it cannot deal with your Application in respect of Allard Interior Systems Inc. until you take further steps as follows:

(a) by March 20, 2013, 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.

The HRTO’s “Applicant’s Guide” provides some examples of how contact information can be found or verified. You may also wish to review the cases noted above, as well as the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure and other Guides to its processes, all available on the HRTO’s website at www.hrto.ca, before responding to this Notice.

If you do not provide the further information requested above, by March 20, 2013, the HRTO may decide to dismiss your Application.

6The applicant did not reply to the Tribunal’s letter.

7As the applicant has failed to comply with the Tribunal’s direction set out in the letter of February 28, 2013, the Application is dismissed under Rule 6.6 (b).

8I am not seized.