Lisa Henry v. Clarkson Angels Child Care & Educational Centre, 2017 HRTO 953

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Lisa Henry Applicant

-and-

Clarkson Angels Child Care & Educational Centre, Tina (Lousie) Power, and Sandra Borenstein Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: July 27, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 953 Indexed as: Henry v. Clarkson Angels Child Care Educational Centre

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The Application lists a number of personal respondents and indicates the address of the organizational respondent as the address of service for the personal respondents. The organizational respondent has indicated that two of the personal respondents that were named in the Application no longer work at the organizational respondent. As a result, the Application has not been served on these personal respondnents.

3In a Case Assessment Direction dated June 22, 2017, the applicant was directed to provide the Tribunal with the personal address for delivery of these personal respondents and explain the steps taken to ensure that the addresses are current, complete and accurate. The applicant was advised that should she be unable to locate the current address for these two personal respondents, the Application may be dismissed as against them.

4On July 6, 2017, the applicant advised the Tribunal that she had been unable to find an address for either of these personal respondents and provided some details of the efforts she had undertaken to locate these addresses.

5Rule 6.6(b) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal will not deal with an application in respect of a respondent who cannot be contacted at the contact information provided by the applicant.

6It appears that these two individual respondents cannot be contacted at the address provided by the applicant, and she has been unable to locate a current address for them.

7As explained by the Tribunal in Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347, while the Tribunal forwards completed applications to respondents, it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide accurate contact information, and the Tribunal relies on applicants to provide a correct address for respondents named in their applications. Generally, in such cases, applicants explain what efforts were undertaken to find and verify a current address and explain why the contact information is believed to be the complete, accurate, and the most recent address.

8The applicant has failed to provide the Tribunal with accurate contact information for two of the personal respondents she named in her Application.

9Rule 5.3 states that the Tribunal may decide not to deal with an application that is not filed in compliance with the Tribunal's Rules. As such, since the applicant has not provided the Tribunal with the proper contact information for these two personal respondents, the Tribunal may not proceed with the Application as against these two personal respondents.

10In accordance with Rules 5.3 and 6.6(b), the Tribunal the Application is dismissed as against these two personal respondents. The style of cause is amended to reflect the same.

11I am not seized of this case.