Andrew Noruwa v. Eaton Chelsea Hotel, 2014 HRTO 1464

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrew Noruwa

Applicant

-and-

Eaton Chelsea Hotel, Wysdom Consulting Group Inc. and Said Said

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Decision Date: October 2, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1464

Indexed as: Noruwa v. Eaton Chelsea Hotel

1The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) against the Eaton Chelsea Hotel (“Eaton Chelsea”) on April 22, 2014.

2Eaton Chelsea responded to the Application on June 20, 104. In its Response, it named Wysdom Constulting Group Inc. (“Wysdom Consulting”) and Said Said (“Said”) as additional respondents.

3By letter dated July 4, 2014, the Tribunal directed the additional respondents to file a Response to the Application by August 8, 2014. Said filed his response on August 14, 2014. Wysdom Consulting did not file a Response.

4By letter dated September 2, 2014, the Tribunal directed Wysdom Consulting to file its Response by September 16, 2014, failing which the Tribunal would proceed without further notice to it.

5As of today’s date, Wysdom Consulting has not filed a Response.

6Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 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.

7An 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.

8Failure to file a Response or participate in a Tribunal proceeding may lead to orders against individual and corporate respondents without their participation. In Kearns v. 1327827 Ontario, 2009 HRTO 457, the Tribunal set out its approach, and rationale for that approach, in circumstances where a respondent fails to file a Response after having been cautioned. Where no Response is filed and the Tribunal is satisfied the respondent has received notice, the Tribunal will proceed to determine the Application in the absence of the respondent.

9At paragraphs 11-14 of Kearns, the Tribunal noted that the enforcement procedures prescribed by the Code are important mechanisms available to the public for claiming and enforcing fundamental human rights. These enforcement procedures also provide a clear means for respondents to explain and defend against human rights allegations.

10It has now been two weeks since the Response was due from Wysdom Consulting. I am satisfied that Wysdom Consulting has received notice of the Application and notice of the Tribunal’s Order directing it to file a Response.

11It appears that Wysdom Consulting refuses or has chosen not to participat in these proceedings, notwithstanding notice of the implications of Rule 5.5. In the circumstances, the Tribunal will proceed without the participation of Wysdom Consulting and deems it to have waived its right to notice and to participate pursuant to Rules 5.5(b) and (c).

12I am not seized of this case.