minicounsel

Lee Anne Skelding v. Sun Parlour Emergency Medical Services Inc. and Arnold Huddleston, 2013 HRTO 829 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

May 16, 2013

Lee Anne Skelding v. Sun Parlour Emergency Medical Services Inc. and Arnold Huddleston, 2013 HRTO 829

Case Summary

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents. The corporate respondent filed a response, but the personal respondent failed to do so. The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the personal respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and provided him with 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lee Anne Skelding

Applicant

-and-

Sun Parlour Emergency Medical Services Inc. and Arnold Huddleston

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: May 16, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 829

Indexed as: Skelding v. Sun Parlour Emergency Medical Services Inc.

[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 August 31, 2012.

[2] On March 27, 2013 the Tribunal issued a Revised 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 April 17, 2013.

[3] The respondent Sun Parlour Emergency Medical Services Inc. subsequently filed a Response to the Application.

[4] As of the date of this Interim Decision the personal respondent Arnold Huddleston 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 applicant has provided a mailing 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 16^th^ day of May, 2013.

“Signed by”

Brian Eyolfson

Vice-chair