Gosselin v. Rosedale Ladies League, 2014 HRTO 1791

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jillian Gosselin Applicant

-and-

Rosedale Ladies League, Mari-Beth Muir and Tania Ducklow Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: December 16, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1791 Indexed as: Gosselin v. Rosedale Ladies League

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to the provision of goods and services because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

BACKGROUND

2On August 21, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application ("the Notice") to the respondents in which it directed that a Response must be filed with the Tribunal no later than September 25, 2014. The Notice was sent by regular mail and was not returned to the Tribunal as being undeliverable. The Notice contained the following warning:

If you fail to respond to the Application, the HRTO may deem you to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application, deem you to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding, proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to you and decide the matter based only on the material before the HRTO.

3On September 25, 2014, the organizational respondent and Mari-Beth Muir filed a Response. The respondent Tania Ducklow did not file a Response.

4On October 10, 2014, the Tribunal wrote again to the parties directing that the respondent Tania Ducklow file a full Response to the Application before October 28, 2014, together with an explanation for the failure to file a Response to date. The letter again warned the respondent about the consequences of not filing a Response and the respondent's attention was drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure which provides:

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.

5On December 1, 2014, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant asking her to confirm the contact information provided for Tania Ducklow or to provide alternative contact information for this individual. On December 2, 2014, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal to advise that she believes that Tania Ducklow is the Vice-President of the organizational respondent and has had notice of the Application. The applicant also indicated that after the Application was delivered to the respondents at the address of the organizational respondent, Tania Ducklow "broke off and blocked all communications in social media" with the applicant, who is a member of the organizational respondent.

6To date, this respondent has not complied with these directions and has not filed a Response or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal.

DECISION

7In Kearns v. 1327827 Ontario, 2009 HRTO 457 at paras. 11 to 14, the Tribunal set out its approach in circumstances where a respondent fails to file a Response after having been cautioned by the Tribunal about the consequences of not doing so. As the Tribunal noted, after having been provided clear notice of what is required, a respondent who refuses or chooses not to file a Response should not be able to frustrate the objects of the Code, and the applicant's rights to assert a claim and seek a timely determination of that claim.

8Where no Response is filed, the Tribunal will proceed to determine the Application in the absence of the respondent. In all but the rarest of cases, the Tribunal will deem the respondent to have waived its right to participate in the proceeding and deem the respondent to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application. I am satisfied that the respondent Tania Ducklow has received the Notice of Application and the further direction requiring her to file a Response. The respondent Tania Ducklow appears to have refused or has chosen not to participate in these proceedings.

ORDER

9For the reasons set out above, I make the following order:

a. The respondent Tania Ducklow is deemed to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application; and

b. The Respondent Tania Ducklow is deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation in these proceedings.

c. The respondent Tania Ducklow is not entitled to further notice with respect to the Application.

NEXT STEPS

10The applicant and the other respondents have agreed to mediation. Despite the Orders above, the respondent Tania Ducklow will be provided with a Notice of Mediation but must first file a Response (Form 2) to the Application if she intends to participate in mediation.

11I am not seized of this matter.