Butler v. Attridge Transportation Incorporated, 2015 HRTO 1094

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Charles Butler Applicant

-and-

Attridge Transportation Incorporated Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: August 17, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1094 Indexed as: Butler v. Attridge Transportation Incorporated

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Charles Butler, Applicant Self-represented

Attridge Transportation Incorporated, Respondent Glenn Attridge, Representative

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, age and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The Application was sent to the respondent, but a Response was not filed.

3An Interim Decision was issued on April 28, 2015, when the respondent still had not filed a Response, deeming the respondent to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application, waiving all rights to notice or participation on the proceedings, and not being entitled to further notice with respect to the Application. See Butler v. Attridge Transportation Incorporated, 2015 HRTO 542.

4Subsequent to this, the respondent filed a Response and then a Form 20, Request for Reconsideration ("the Request"). The respondent submits that through administrative error, the Application was placed in an envelope for James Attridge, the respondent's president, who is not actively in the workplace and who winters in another country. The respondent submits that in a conversation with Tribunal staff, it indicated that it was interested in attending mediation, such that it did not realize that it was still required to complete a Response.

5After the Request was received, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and directed that he file submissions responding to the Request. The respondent filed a further letter, responsive to the allegations in the Application.

6The applicant filed communications with the Tribunal which appear to oppose the Request. The applicant submits that the respondent's submissions are incredulous, submits that ignorance is not a legal defence, and disputes the respondent's submissions that it did not receive the Application and/or did not know what to do with it.

ANALYSIS

7The Tribunal has held that a party may only request reconsideration on final, not interim, decisions. See the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Reconsideration and Velegjanin v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 912 at para. 5.

8Notwithstanding this, the respondent indicates that through misunderstanding or inadvertence, it did not file a Response because it had orally agreed to participate in mediation. A Response has now been filed, along with a letter, dated July 23, 2015, which responds to the allegations raised in the Application.

9While the applicant disputes the veracity of the respondent's explanations, the respondent has now filed a Response and the Tribunal has not issued a final decision upholding or dismissing the Application. The respondent's Response was filed the same day as the Interim Decision was issued, and the Request was filed two days later.

10In these circumstances, the order concerning the non-participation of the respondent, is revoked. The respondent will be entitled to participate and receive notice.

11As both parties have agreed to participate in mediation, the Tribunal will schedule the file for a half-day in-person mediation. A notice of mediation, setting out the date, time, and location, will be sent to the parties in separate correspondence from the Tribunal.

12I am not seized with this matter.