HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Vishavjit Singh
Applicant
-and-
Olde York Potato Chips, Lyr Group and Quick Jobs Ltd.
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Singh v. Olde York Potato Chips
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Vishavjit Singh, Applicant
Jaskaran ingh Sandhu, Representative
1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The applicant originally named Olde York Potato Chips and Quick Jobs Ltd. as respondents to his Application.
3The Tribunal has had difficulty delivering the Application to Quick Jobs Ltd. as Tribunal correspondence continues to be returned from the various different addresses that the applicant has provided for that respondent.
4On August 20, 2014, the applicant’s representative wrote to the Tribunal to advise that it was his understanding that Quick Jobs was a division of Lyr Group. He advised that he wished to add Lyr Group as a respondent.
5On December 3, 2014, the Tribunal delivered a copy of the Application to Lyr Group and directed Lyr Group to provide its Response by January 20, 2015. Lyr Group has not filed a Response as required.
6In May 2015, in response to a Tribunal CAD, the applicant provided a Corporate Profile and Status Report for Quick Jobs Ltd. that indicated that it is in fact an active corporation and not dissolved.
7The Tribunal served Quick Jobs Ltd. with a copy of the Application at the address indicated on the Corporate Profile and Status Report on June 1, 2015. This correspondence was not returned as undeliverable .
8When the time period for the filing of a Response from Quick Jobs Ltd had elapsed, the Tribunal issued a CAD to Quick Jobs Ltd. providing it with five days to file a Response. The Tribunal’s CAD was returned with a notation indicating that Quick Jobs Ltd. has moved. The courier notice also included a phone number which is the phone number for the Lyr Group.
FAilure of Lyr Group to file response
9As noted above, the Tribunal delivered a copy of the Application to Lyr Group on December 3, 2014. Lyr Group has not filed a Response and the deadline to do so has long passed.
10When Lyr Group did not file its Response by the January 20, 2015 deadline, the Tribunal Registrar advised Lyr Group, by regular mail and e-mail, that if it wished to participate in the Tribunal process it was required to deliver and file a Response (Form 2) by February 24, 2015. The Registrar advised Lyr Group was of the consequences of failing to file a Response to the Application as required (see below).
11Lyr Group did not file a Response nor communicate with the Tribunal in any way.
12Rule 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.
13An 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.
14Failure 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 (“Kearns”), 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.
15At 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.
16It appears that Lyr Group 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 Lyr Group and deems Lyr Group to have waived their right to notice and to participate pursuant to Rules 5.5(b) and (c) and further deems Lyr Group to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application pursuant to Rule 5.5(a).
Respondent Quick Jobs Ltd.
17None of the addresses that the applicant has provided for Quick Jobs Ltd. so far have been accurate or current. Within 14 days of the date of this CAD, the applicant must write to the Tribunal, copying the respondent Olde York Potato Chips, advising whether he wishes to proceed with his Application against Quick Jobs Ltd. If he does wish to retain this company as a respondent, he must provide an accurate and current address for the company. If he cannot do so, the Tribunal may dismiss his Application as against Quick Jobs Ltd. and proceed to process it only with respect to the other two respondents.
order and direction
18The Tribunal makes the following orders:
a. Lyr Group is deemed to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding; and
b. Lyr Group is deemed to have accepted all the allegations in the Application.
19Within 14 days of the date of this CAD, the applicant must write to the Tribunal, copying the respondent Olde York Potato Chips, advising whether he wishes to proceed with his Application against Quick Jobs Ltd. If the applicant cannot provide an accurate current address for Quick Jobs Ltd., the Tribunal may dismiss his Application as against this respondent and proceed to process it only with respect to the other two respondents.
20The Tribunal will issue further directions as to the next steps in this matter once it receives the above confirmation from the applicant or once the time for filing such a confirmation has passed.
21I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 31^st^ day of August, 2015.
“Signed By”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair