Kimberlee Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion and John Sit, 2009 HRTO 335

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kimberlee Ouwroulis

Applicant

-and-

New Locomotion and John Sit

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michael Gottheil

Date: March 20, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 335

Indexed as: Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion

1This Interim Decision is further to my Interim Decision dated March 4, 2009 (2009 HRTO 237) directing the applicant to advise the Tribunal in writing, no later than March 13, 2009, whether she wished to pursue her Application and confirming her contact information. The applicant has not complied with that direction and there is uncertainty whether she will attend the hearing scheduled for March 24 and 25, 2009. The respondent has asked that the hearing be cancelled and the Application dismissed.

2On March 5, 2009 the applicant called the Registrar’s office and advised that she did wish to pursue the Application, but was seeking an adjournment of the hearing dates scheduled for March 24 and 25, 2009. The Tribunal Case Processing Officer advised the applicant that she was required to comply with the Tribunal’s direction and, if she was seeking an adjournment, make a request in writing and provide a copy to the respondent. The applicant indicated that she would do that by March 9, 2009.

3Having heard nothing from the applicant, on March 12, 2009, the Tribunal sent an email reminding the applicant that if she was seeking an adjournment, she must make a written request. The Tribunal has not received a response to the March 12, 2009 email.

4Human 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.

5When 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.

6Likewise, 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.

7The 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.

8In view of the applicant’s failure to comply with the Tribunal’s directions, the hearing scheduled for March 24 and 25, 2009 is hereby cancelled.

9I am mindful that the applicant was represented by counsel at the outset, but is now self-represented and may not have fully understood her obligations. However, the applicant must advise the Tribunal in writing, no later than April 9, 2009 whether she wishes to pursue this Application, failing which it will be dismissed as abandoned.