Vashishtha v. AA Cars @ Truck Rentals, 2014 HRTO 621

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Lukesh Anand Vashishtha Applicant

-and-

AA Cars @ Truck Rentals Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: May 1, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 621

Indexed as: Vashishtha v. AA Cars @ Truck Rentals

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Lukesh Anand Vashishtha, Applicant

Self-represented

AA Cars @ Truck Rentals, Respondent

No one appearing

Introduction

1This is an Application for Contravention of Settlement by the respondent.

BACKGROUND

2On February 14, 2014, The Tribunal delivered the Application for Contravention of Settlement to the respondent and directed it to file a Response by February 28, 2014.

3The respondent did not file a Response.

4On March 26, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days of the date of the Case Assessment Direction, if it wished to participate in the proceeding. The Case Assessment Direction 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.

5To date, the respondent has not complied with these directions and has not filed a Response or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal.

DECISION

6In 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, and the rationale for that approach:

Once served with an Application, if the respondent wishes to participate and defend against the claim made by the applicant, the respondent has only to file a Response. The Tribunal provides a respondent with clear notice of what is required, and has prepared a Guide which assists a respondent in completing its Response. The Response also provides a respondent with an opportunity to indicate which facts or allegations in the Application are agreed to, and which are disputed.

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. Section 40 of the Code requires the Tribunal to dispose of Applications in a way which will provide for “a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the application.” Where no Response is filed, in order to fulfill this statutory mandate, 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 pursuant to Rule 5.5(c) and deem the respondent to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application pursuant to Rule 5.5(a).

7I am satisfied that the respondent has received the Notice of Application and the further direction requiring the filing of a Response. The respondent refuses or has chosen not to participate in these proceedings.

ORDER

8For the reasons set out above, I make the following order:

a. The respondent is deemed to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application for Contravention of Settlement;

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

c. The respondent is not entitled to further notice with respect to the Application for Contravention of Settlement.

NEXT STEPS

9The Tribunal went on in Kearns, above, to explain that, for several reasons, it will not generally make a decision based upon the material filed by the applicant without first providing an applicant with an opportunity to indicate whether he or she wishes to file further materials and/or make oral submissions.

10Accordingly, the Registrar will scheduled a one hour conference call in order to allow the applicant to make oral submissions as to whether the January 17, 2014 Minutes of Settlement have been breached. If the applicant wishes to rely upon any facts, case law or documents that are not already before the Tribunal in this Application for Contravention of Settlement, the applicant shall file these materials with the Tribunal no later than 14 days before the date of the scheduled conference call hearing.

11I am not seized of this matter.