Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Emile Wickham Applicant
-and-
Hong Shing Chinese Restaurant Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: November 13, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1532 Indexed as: Wickham v. Hong Shing Chinese Restaurant
APPEARANCES
Emile Wickham, Applicant Self-represented
Hong Shing Chinese Restaurant, Respondent David M. Goodman, Counsel
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether the Tribunal’s Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 1405, should be set aside and the respondent should be permitted to file a Response to the Application.
2On May 13, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application (“the Notice”) to the respondent in which it directed that a Response must be filed with the Tribunal by no later than June 17, 2015. The Notice also warned the respondent about the consequences of not filing a Response. The respondent did not file a Response.
3On July 16, 2015, the Tribunal wrote once more to the parties directing that the respondent file a full Response to the Application before July 30, 2015 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. The respondent still did not file a Response.
4On October 21, 2015, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 1405, which made the following order:
a. The respondent is deemed to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application;
b. The respondent is deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation in these proceedings; and
c. The respondent is not entitled to further notice with respect to the Application.
5The Interim Decision also directed the applicant to attend a one-hour case management conference call. On October 29, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Case Management Conference Call, which scheduled the conference call for November 13, 2015.
6On November 4, 2015, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, which requested that the Interim Decision be set aside and that the respondent be permitted to file a Response because neither of the original mailings from the Tribunal were received by the respondent.
7On November 13, 2015, the Case Management Conference Call took place as scheduled. The applicant consented to the respondent’s request to set aside the Interim Decision on the condition that he be allowed to amend his Application to increase the amount of monetary compensation that he is seeking as a remedy from $5,000 to $10,000. The respondent consented to the applicant’s request to amend his Application. The respondent also agreed to file its Response to the Application within two weeks.
8Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
The Tribunal’s Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 1405, is set aside.
By no later than November 27, 2015, the respondent shall file a Response to the Application.
The Application is amended to increase the amount of monetary compensation that the applicant is seeking as a remedy to $10,000.
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of November, 2015.
“Signed By”
__________________________________
Ken Bhattacharjee Vice-chair