HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Greg Goodridge
Complainant
-and-
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Commission
-and-
Toronto Police Services Board, Anthony Piazza and Maria Perry
Respondents
interim DECISION
Adjudicator: David A. Wright
Indexed as: Goodridge v. Toronto Police Services Board
1Greg Goodridge filed a Complaint against the respondents on February 2, 2004. On May 27, 2008, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) referred the Complaint to the Tribunal under the previous version of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). An Initial Conference Call was held by the Tribunal on July 11, 2008 in which the complainant participated, together with counsel for the respondents. The complainant asked that the respondents not have his contact information and asked to be served through Commission counsel. He also subsequently asked that the Tribunal not contact him directly and Commission counsel agreed to provide him all documentation from the Tribunal.
2On the Initial Conference Call, the Commission indicated its intention to seek certain production orders. Deadlines were set for the exchange of hearing briefs, then written submissions on production. At a conference call held on November 14, 2008, the complainant requested that I recuse myself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias. In an earlier Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 94, I dismissed the request for recusal and granted the Toronto Police Association leave to intervene. On February 27, 2009, I made various production orders and ordered that certain records be produced to the Tribunal by the Chief of Police for the City of Toronto. By letter dated March 12, 2009, counsel for the Chief of Police advised that there were no records that responded to this aspect of production order. As I understand, the production order has been complied with.
3After various attempts to contact the parties and schedule a Pre-Hearing Conference Call, a call was scheduled for April 6, 2009. On April 1, 2009, the complainant wrote to the Tribunal making various allegations against Commission counsel, including that she had not forwarded him Tribunal correspondence. He advised that he was in the process of retaining a lawyer, requested that the pre-hearing conference call be rescheduled, indicated that he wished to make further production requests, and requested copies of Tribunal correspondence. He suggested that he was not prepared to set conference call or hearing dates until further production requests had been complied with.
4The Tribunal provided the complainant’s correspondence to the other parties and advised that the call would proceed, and that the complainant could raise the matters addressed in his letter during the call. Commission counsel, in a letter, stated that she had provided him copies of all of the Tribunal’s correspondence.
5During the April 6 call I directed: (i) that the Tribunal would provide the complainant with a copy of the correspondence in the Tribunal’s file since November 1, 2008; (ii) that the complainant provide the other parties and the Tribunal with an address for service of documents on him by the other parties by April 20, 2009; and (iii) that a further call would be held on May 14, 2009. The parties were directed to be prepared to identify any further Requests for Order they wished to bring and the appropriate timetable for them, and to set hearing dates.
6On May 14, 2009, the complainant did not dial in to the conference call. As the complainant was not present, the call could not proceed.
7The complainant’s failure to attend a scheduled conference call is a matter of serious concern, particularly in light of his previous request, which was granted, that the setting of hearing dates be delayed. 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.
8The complainant is required to advise the Tribunal, in writing, by June 1, 2009, whether he wishes to pursue his Complaint. If he does wish to pursue this matter, he shall explain why he was not present on the May 14 call, and provide five (5) dates and times during the week of June 1 at which he is available for a rescheduled call. The other parties shall immediately advise which of these dates and times they are available. During the call, the parties shall be prepared to set hearing dates in the summer or early fall of 2009.
9If the complainant does not respond in writing by June 1, 2009, the Complaint may be dismissed as abandoned.
If the complainant has not responded and the Commission opposes such an order, it shall provide written submissions in this regard by the same date.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of May, 2009.
“Signed By”
David A. Wright
Vice-chair