Rohan Edward v. Moda at Home Inc., 2009 HRTO 568

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rohan Edward

Applicant

-and-

Moda at Home Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: May 5, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 568

Indexed as: Edward v. Moda at Home

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. The applicant is represented by David Thomas of an organization called the Tamil Catholic Community of Toronto. The hearing is scheduled for June 9, 2009.

1The hearing was originally scheduled, by notice dated December 19, 2008, to commence on February 25, 2009. The Tribunal’s Notice was not returned. On the morning of the hearing, the respondent was present and prepared to start, but neither the applicant nor his representative was present. The Tribunal’s typical practice where a party does not attend will be to confirm in the Tribunal’s file that the Confirmation of Hearing was sent to the missing party at the address provided, wait half an hour and if the party is still not present, proceed in the party’s absence without further notice to that party. Where an applicant is not present, this will generally lead to the dismissal of an Application. Where a respondent is not present, the Tribunal will generally deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations in the Application, hear submissions and evidence as appropriate from the applicant and make a final decision on the Application.

2In the particular circumstances of this case, the Tribunal took the extra step of contacting the applicant and his representative and arranging a conference call with them. Mr. Thomas stated that he had not received notice of the hearing from the Tribunal nor the respondent’s documents and will-say statements. The Tribunal therefore granted an adjournment.

3The respondent has since copied the Tribunal on a letter to the applicant’s representative which advises that the respondent’s courier service has confirmed that the respondent’s witness list and documents were delivered to Mr. Thomas’s office address on January 8, 2009.

4The Tribunal sent a Confirmation of Rescheduled Hearing on March 2, 2009. It set out the parties’ obligations to file a list of documents (required by Rule 16) and a list of witnesses (required by Rule 17) 45 days prior to the hearing. The applicant, however, has not done so. The applicant’s failure to provide materials that are necessary for the other party and the Tribunal to prepare for the hearing is a matter of serious concern, particularly in light of his previous non-attendance at a scheduled hearing. In Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335, the Tribunal stated as follows at paras. 4-7:

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.

5The Tribunal makes the following directions:

(1) If the applicant intends to proceed with the Application, he or his representative shall, by May 12, 2009, deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal a letter indicating this and confirming that they will be present at the hearing on June 9, 2009.

(2) By the same date, the applicant shall comply with Rules 16 and 17 by delivering a witness list, summary of expected evidence, and documents upon which he intends to rely.

(3) Should the applicant fail to comply with the above, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

6I am not seized.