HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Brenda Geller
Applicant
-and-
B & G Visual Solutions Inc aka Signarama and Signarama Canada Inc.
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Geller v. B G Visual Solutions Inc.
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). This Interim Decision explains why the title of proceedings for this Application has been changed and makes directions with respect to next steps.
BACKGROUND
2On January 18, 2016, 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 no later than February 22, 2016. The Notice was sent by regular mail and was not returned to the Tribunal as being undeliverable.
3The respondent did not file a Response.
4On March 3, 2016 the Tribunal wrote again to the parties directing that the respondent file a full Response to the Application before March 17, 2016 together with an explanation for the failure to file a Response to date.
5The respondent has not complied with these directions and has not filed a Response or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal.
6In Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 437 issued on April 7, 2016 the respondent was declared in default and a conference call with the applicant was directed.
7Subsequently the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding ("Request") seeking to substitute the respondent above with Signarama Canada Inc. The applicant argued that the respondent is correctly identified as Signarama Canada Inc. and not B & G Visual Solutions Inc. aka Signarama.
8At the hearing I inquired of the applicant's representative whether it was a possibility that the respondent had not been delivered with the Application. It was suggested that a corporate search had indicated that the address for the proposed respondent was a good one, however in the circumstances the applicant requested an adjournment of up to 30 days to confirm that proper contact information had been provided.
9Based on the information before me it appears appropriate to grant the the Request to amend the Application and the Signarama Canada Inc. is added to the Application subject to any submissions it might make, and the title of proceeding amended accordingly.
10It is also appropriate to hold this Application in abeyance for a period of up to 30 days pending the applicant's confirmation that the proper respondent is in fact Signarama Canada Inc. and that it should have received the materials in this case.
11At the request of the applicant a case management conference call will be re-scheduled to deal with the issues identified in 2016 HRTO 437 as follows:
a. Does the applicant wish to have an oral hearing or have the Tribunal decide the Application based upon written materials filed?
b. Does the applicant intend to call witnesses? Do these witnesses need to testify in person or can they give their evidence over the telephone, in writing or in some other format?
c. What documents does the applicant intend to rely upon?
d. What are the issues raised in the Application?
e. What remedies is the applicant seeking in the event that the Tribunal finds that the applicant's rights under the Code were infringed? What evidence does the applicant intend to rely upon in support of these remedies?
f. Does the applicant plan to make any legal submissions or rely on any case law?
Order
12The respondent Signarama Canada Inc. is added to the Applicatoin and the style of title of proceeding amended accordingly.
13I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of August, 2016.
"Signed By"
David Muir
Vice-chair