Jamie Duesling v. David Chretien and DJ’s Pizza and Cafe, 2014 HRTO 1291

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jamie Duesling Applicant

-and-

David Chretien and DJ’s Pizza and Cafe Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: September 2, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1291 Indexed as: Duesling v. Chretien

1The applicant filed this Application alleging that the respondents discriminated against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On October 31, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondents in which they were directed to file a Response to the Application no later than December 5, 2013. The personal respondent filed a Response but the corporate respondent did not. On April 23, 2014, the personal respondent’s counsel advised the Tribunal that the corporate respondent was “no longer in business.” It is unclear whether the corporate respondent has declared bankruptcy since the Tribunal has not received a Notice of Bankruptcy or any correspondence from a bankruptcy trustee.

3By letter dated June 5, 2014, the Tribunal advised the corporate respondent that if it did not file a Response by June 19, 2014, the Tribunal might take any and all steps set out in 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.

4The Tribunal’s June 5, 2014 letter was sent by courier and regular mail. The copy that was sent by courier was returned to the Tribunal as undelivered. However, the copy sent by mail was not returned to the Tribunal.

5It continues to be unclear whether the corporate respondent is in fact bankrupt. If the corporate respondent does continue to exist, I find that it has received notice of these proceedings in the circumstances set out above. It appears that the corporate respondent refuses or has chosen not to participate in these proceedings, notwithstanding notice of the implications of Rule 5.5. In the circumstances, pursuant to Rules 5.5 (a), (b) and (c), the Tribunal orders that the corporate respondent is deemed (1) to have accepted all the allegations in the Application; and (2) to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding.

ORDER

6In sum, the Tribunal makes the following orders:

a. The corporate respondent is deemed to have accepted all the allegations in the Application; and

b. The corporate respondent is deemed to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding.

7Since both the applicant and the personal respondent agree to mediation, the Registrar shall schedule a mediation in this matter.

8I am not seized of this matter.