Tiara Rycroft v. Bob Minhas, 2015 HRTO 48

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tiara Rycroft Applicant

-and-

Bob Minhas Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: January 13, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 48 Indexed as: Rycroft v. Minhas

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of pregnancy contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that she was terminated by the respondent, the owner of a business, due to her pregnancy.

2The respondent, through a representative, has filed an incomplete Response. The Tribunal has issued correspondence dated October 17, November 14, and December 9, 2014 to the representative and, when the representative failed to respond, to the representative and the respondent personally advising that the Response is incomplete, cannot be accepted, and requesting that the respondent complete it. The Tribunal set out the consequences of not filing a complete Response. It has also noted that the representative has not provided a Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) registration number, referred to its policy on Representation before the Tribunal, and has requested that the representative identify which exemption under which she falls to represent the respondent. Neither the representative nor the respondent has responded to the Tribunal’s correspondence.

3Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure set out the consequences when a respondent does not file a Response. In this situation, the respondent has filed part of a Response, but it is incomplete in that it is not responsive to the allegations in the Application, specifically the allegations of discrimination because of pregnancy. Instead, attached to the Response were several letters and emails to the applicant while she was employed and what appear to be letters, undated, from two employees of a company that the respondent apparently owned. The respondent himself did not submit a letter responding to the allegations.

4Given the respondent’s failure to respond to the Tribunal’s communications and the incomplete Application, the respondent will, if the matter proceeds to a hearing, be bound by the information that was submitted with his Response, unless leave is otherwise granted by the Tribunal.

5As the representative has not provided a LSUC registration number, she will not be permitted to represent the respondent unless she provides a LSUC registration number or falls within one of the LSUC’s exemptions.

6Since the parties have both agreed to mediation, the Tribunal will schedule this matter for a half-day mediation. A Notice of Mediation, setting out the date, time, and location, will be sent under separate cover.

7I am not seized with this matter.