Streete-Thomas v. Extendicare Guildwood, 2014 HRTO 1307

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Edrick Streete-Thomas Applicant

-and-

Extendicare Guildwood and Burchell Barnes Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: September 4, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1307 Indexed as: Streete-Thomas v. Extendicare Guildwood

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Extendicare Guildwood and Burchell Barnes, Respondents Maria Kotsopoulos, Counsel

1By Application filed April 30, 2014, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H. 19, as amended (the "Code").

2The Application was delivered to the respondents by way of Notice of Application dated May 31, 2014, and the respondents were directed to file Responses (Form 2) within 35 days. The Tribunal did not receive Responses from either of the respondents.

3On July 7, 2014 the Tribunal directed the respondents to file Responses by July 21, 2014 if they wished to participate in this proceeding. The respondents were advised of the consequences under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure ("Rules") of failing to file a Response to the Application.

4Again, neither respondent filed a Response.

5By Interim Decision, 2014 HRTO 1146, dated July 31, 2014, the Tribunal held that it would proceed with consideration of the Application without the participation of the respondents. It deemed the respondents to have waived their right to notice and to participate pursuant to Rules 5.5(b) and (c). It also deemed the respondents to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application pursuant to Rule 5.5(a).

Respondents' Request to File a Response

6On July 31, 2014, the respondents requested an extension of the time limit for the delivery of a Response. The Tribunal directed them to file a Request for Order During Proceedings ("RFOP") which they did on August 6, 2014. They also filed a Response on Auguat 5, 2014. The Tribunal has not yet served the Response on the applicant.

7In their RFOP, the respondents request that the Tribunal reverse the order in Interim Decision, 2014 HRTO 1146 and grant them permission to participate in this proceeding.

8The respondents submit that their failure to respond to the Application was caused by inadvertence and extenuating factors beyond their control. In particular, the respondents submit that they were awaiting approval for the retention of counsel from their insurer's legal committee.

9The applicant did not respond to the respondents' RFOP.

10In the circumstances of this case, I find it appropriate to set aside the Tribunal's order in Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 1146. I note that it would have been desireable for the respondents to seek an extension of time for the filing of their Response rather than ignore correspondence from the Tribunal as they did.

11However, Rule 1.7(a) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure provides the Tribunal with wide discretion in ensuring "the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it". I find the respondents have provided a satisfactory explanation for their failure to file Response and, with a view to fairness and due process, the respondents should be allowed to participate in this proceeding and file a Response.

Order

12The Tribunal makes the following Order:

a. The Tribunal's Registrar will serve on the applicant the Response filed by the respondent on August 5, 2014; and

b. The applicant has a right to file a Reply to the respondents' Response within 21 days of the date on which it is sent to the applicant.

13I am not seized of this matter.