Walcott v. Innovation Management Solutions, 2014 HRTO 569

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Victor Walcott

Applicant

-and-

Innovation Management Solutions; Michael Grady and Brandon Woolford

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: April 23, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 569

Indexed as: Walcott v. Innovation Management Solutions

1The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging reprisal.

2On October 28, 2013 the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to add the respondent Brandon Woolford. Although given an opportunity to respond to the Request none of the respondents did so and in Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 1961 issued on November 27, 2013 Woolford was added to the Application.

3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondent Woolford in which it directed that a Response to the Application must be filed with the Tribunal not later than January 20, 2014.

4On January 28, 2014 the Tribunal wrote to the parties and directed the respondent Woolford that if he wished to participate in the Tribunal process he must deliver and file a Response (Form 2) by February 11, 2014. The respondent was advised of the consequences of failing to file a Response to the Application as required (see below).

5On January 28, 2014 counsel for the respondents Innovative Management Solutions (IMS Group) and Michael Grady wrote to the Tribunal and the applicant to advise that they did not represent Woolford and that he was no longer employed by the organizational respondent. Woolford's last known contact information was provided by counsel and a further Notice of Application was delivered to the respondent Woolford on February 7, 2014 requiring that the respondent provide his Response before March 14, 2014 but as of the date of this Interim Decision the respondent has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal's correspondence to him been returned.

6Finally on March 19, 2014 the Tribunal wrote to the parties again and directed the respondent Woolford that if he wished to participate in the Tribunal process he must deliver and file a Response (Form 2) by April 2, 2014. The respondent was advised again of the consequences of failing to file a Response to the Application as required.

7Rule 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.

8An 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.

9Failure 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.

10At 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.

11It has now been more than two weeks since the Response and accompanying explanation for the delay were due. I am satisfied that the respondent Woolford has received notice of the Application and notice of the Tribunal's Order directing it to file a Response.

12It appears that the respondent Woolford refuses, or has chosen not to participate in these proceedings, notwithstanding notice of the implications of Rule 5.5. In the circumstances, the Tribunal will proceed without the participation of the respondent and deems the respondent Woolford to have waived his right to notice and to participate pursuant to Rules 5.5(b) and (c) and further deems the respondent to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application pursuant to Rule 5.5(a).

13I am not seized of this case.