minicounsel

Darrel Villa

Applicant

-and-

PC Party of Ontario

Respondent

Adjudicator: Bruce Best

Date: November 21, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1527

Indexed as: Villa v. PC Party of Ontario

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s failure to respond to the Application.

2On May 11, 2017, 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 June 15, 2017. The Notice was sent by regular mail and was not returned to the Tribunal as being undeliverable.

3The Notice contained the following warning:

If you fail to respond to the Application, the HRTO may deem you to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application, deem you to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding, proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to you and decide the matter based only on the material before the HRTO.

4The respondent did not file a Response by June 15, 2017.

5On July 31, 2017 the Tribunal wrote again to the parties directing that the respondent file a full Response to the Application before September 7, 2017 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 and the respondent's attention was drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which provides:

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.

6The respondent did not file a Response by September 2, 2017.

7The Tribunal send a third letter to the parties on October 2, 2017, by regular mail, courier, and email to the contact person identified in the Application, who from the materials filed appears to be the respondent’s riding association president for the applicant’s riding. The Applicant included emails between himself and the riding association president respecting the issues raised in the Application, and I am satisfied that the email address is correct.

8The courier package was signed for at the address provided in the Application, and the email was not returned as undeliverable.

9To date, the respondent has not filed a Response or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal. I am satisfied that the respondent has received the Application.

Decision

10In Kearns v. 1327827 Ontario, 2009 HRTO 457, at paras. 11 to 14, the Tribunal set out its approach in circumstances where a respondent fails to file a Response after having been cautioned by the Tribunal about the consequences of not doing so. As the Tribunal noted, after having been provided clear notice of what is required, a respondent who refuses or chooses not to file a Response should not be able to frustrate the objects of the Code, and the applicant’s rights to assert a claim and seek a timely determination of that claim.

11Where no Response is filed, the Tribunal will proceed to determine the Application in the absence of the respondent. In all but the rarest of cases, the Tribunal will deem the respondent to have waived its right to participate in the proceeding and deem the respondent to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application. I am satisfied that the respondent has received the Notice of Application and the further directions requiring the filing of a Response. The respondent refuses or has chosen not to participate in these proceedings.

ORDER

12For the reasons set out above, I make 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.

NEXT STEPS

13The Tribunal went on in Kearns, above, to explain that, for several reasons, it will not generally make a decision based upon the material filed by the applicant without first providing an applicant with an opportunity to indicate whether he wishes to file further materials and/or make submissions.

[14] The applicant is therefore directed to advise the Tribunal on the following issues:

a) Does the applicant wish to have an in-person 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?

[15] The applicant shall provide his answers to the above questions within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The Tribunal will provide further direction as appropriate.

[16] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 21^st^ day of November, 2017.

“Signed by”

Bruce Best

Vice-chair

Villa v. PC Party of Ontario, 2017 HRTO 1527

Case Summary

[14] The applicant is therefore directed to advise the Tribunal on the following issues:

a) Does the applicant wish to have an in-person 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?

[15] The applicant shall provide his answers to the above questions within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The Tribunal will provide further direction as appropriate.

[16] I am not seized.

Villa v. PC Party of Ontario, 2017 HRTO 1527

Case Summary

[14] The applicant is therefore directed to advise the Tribunal on the following issues:

a) Does the applicant wish to have an in-person 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?

[15] The applicant shall provide his answers to the above questions within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The Tribunal will provide further direction as appropriate.

[16] I am not seized.