Robert Piette v. Girones Lawyers and Lorenzo Girones, 2009 HRTO 1837

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Robert Piette Applicant

-and-

Girones Lawyers and Lorenzo Girones Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri Price Date: October 30, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1837 Indexed as: Piette v. Girones Lawyers

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (“the Code”) alleging discrimination in respect of services on the basis of disability.

2In a June 11, 2009 Interim Decision in this matter, 2009 HRTO 825, the Tribunal directed that a teleconference hearing be convened in order to hear submissions from the parties on the respondents’ request that the Application be dismissed on the basis of delay and because the Application does not plead facts which support the allegation of discrimination. In accordance with the Interim Decision, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Conference Call scheduling the conference call for July 13, 2009.

3On June 26, 2009, in response to the Interim Decision and the Notice of Conference Call, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the July 13, 2009 teleconference be rescheduled to a later date to allow him to retain counsel and prepare for the conference call. The Tribunal granted the applicant’s request and the conference call scheduled for July 13, 2009 was cancelled.

4The Tribunal’s file indicates that on August 4, 2009, Tribunal staff contacted the applicant by voicemail with respect to rescheduling the teleconference hearing and asked the applicant to contact the Tribunal regarding his availability. On August 10, 2009, Tribunal staff made a further telephone call to the applicant, reached him and was advised by the applicant at that time that he had retained Kate Sellar of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to represent him in this matter. On August 10, 2009, the Applicant confirmed this in writing and asked that the Tribunal contact Ms. Sellar with respect to the rescheduling of the teleconference hearing.

5As requested, the Tribunal contacted Ms. Sellar by telephone with respect to this matter in August 2009, but was unable to confirm that she was representing the applicant in respect of this Application at that time.

6On August 31, 2009, the Tribunal made further attempts to contact the applicant about dates for the teleconference hearing. The applicant emailed the Tribunal shortly thereafter, on the same date, with only the words “Thank you” in the body of his email and, in the subject line, the file number for the Application followed by the word “terminated”.

7The applicant did not respond to further attempts to contact him by both telephone and email in September 2009 and the applicant did not respond to proposed September 2009 dates for the teleconference hearing.

8On September 28, 2009, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant about the scheduling of dates for the teleconference hearing. The Tribunal’s letter was sent to the mailing address provided by the applicant in his Application. The letter from the Tribunal also stated that the Tribunal had not received a response from the applicant regarding its request for dates and advised the applicant that he was required to advise the Tribunal of his intentions with respect to the Application within 10 days of the date of that letter (by October 8, 2009) or the Tribunal would dismiss his Application as abandoned. The applicant has not responded to the September 28, 2009 letter.

9On October 15, 2009, Ms. Sellar of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre confirmed that she is not representing the applicant in respect of this Application.

10As the Tribunal noted in Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335 at paras 4 to 7:

Human rights applications are serious matters. The Code, which has been described as quasi-constitutional legislation, enumerates our most fundamental rights and responsibilities. The enforcement procedures in the Code provide the opportunity for individuals who believe their human rights have been infringed, to file applications directly with the Tribunal, and have the merits of those claims determined in a timely way. Where the Tribunal finds that an applicant’s rights have been violated, the Tribunal has broad remedial powers, and may award monetary compensation and make orders to ensure future compliance with the Code.

When an individual files a human rights application, they are commencing a legal proceeding that requires a respondent to take immediate steps. The respondent must inform itself about the subject matter of the claim and, except in limited circumstances, file a complete response. This may involve the expenditure of significant resources.

Likewise, the filing of a human rights application engages public resources. The Tribunal expects to receive thousands of applications each year from individuals who believe their human rights have been violated. The Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all applicants who file applications. Most important, because of the quasi-constitutional nature of human rights, and in furtherance of its statutory mandate, the Tribunal has an obligation to treat each application seriously, and ensure that it is dealt with fairly and expeditiously.

The opportunity for an individual to make a claim of discrimination to a publicly funded adjudicative body, which has extensive procedural and remedial powers, comes with the obligation to respect the seriousness and significance of the process, and comply with the Tribunal’s Rules. The Tribunal’s procedures are less formal than a court’s and aim to enhance access, including for those parties who may be self-represented. But this informality should not be interpreted to mean that parties may take a casual attitude towards complying with Tribunal directions. There may be circumstances which justify a party’s failure to comply with a Tribunal rule or direction. However, an applicant who does not respond to Tribunal directions risks having the application dismissed.

11The applicant has commenced a legal proceeding against the respondents and he is obliged to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules in respect of that legal proceeding and to participate in it. The Tribunal has been attempting to contact the applicant to schedule a teleconference hearing which was adjourned at his request for more than two months, to no avail. In these circumstances, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.