Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Christine Brady
Applicant
-and-
Durham Rapid Taxi Inc., Ravinder Bhardwaj, Ashoak Sharma, Ravi Sarda, Surinder Bharadwaj, Amir Jamal, and Zeeshan Umar
Respondents
decision
Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price
Indexed as: Brady v. Durham Rapid Taxi
Decision
1The Application in this matter was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”) on May 5, 2009, alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex and reprisal contrary to the Code.
2By Case Assessment Direction in this matter dated April 27, 2010, the Tribunal outlined its attempts since mid-March 2010 to obtain the applicant’s up-to-date contact information, after her legal counsel wrote to the Tribunal on March 9, 2010 advising that they were no longer representing the applicant in this matter and after an Interim Decision was couriered to the applicant and returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable.
3The April 27, 2010 Case Assessment Direction directed the applicant to provide her current contact information to the Tribunal by no later than May 11, 2010, failing which her Application might be dismissed as abandoned. It is now more than one week since the applicant was to have provided her contact information to the Tribunal and she has not done so. Apart from failing to comply with the Case Assessment Direction, the applicant has also failed to provide the Tribunal with the change in her contact information as required by Rule 1.13 of the Rules of Procedure.
4Moreover, one of the respondent counsel in this matter wrote to the Tribunal on May 12, 2010 and advised that he has not been able to deliver the respondents’ documents and witness statements to the applicant, as required by the Tribunal’s Rules and by an earlier Interim Decision in this matter, because his April 1, 2010 inquiry to the applicant seeking to confirm the proper address for service has gone unanswered.
5As 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.
6The applicant has failed to provide the Tribunal with her contact information, as directed, despite being given a number of opportunities to do so. The applicant’s failure to comply with the Tribunal’s directions or to otherwise communicate with the Tribunal in this matter leads me to conclude that the applicant has abandoned this Application. The Application is therefore dismissed as abandoned.
Dated at Toronto, this 21^st^ day of May, 2010.
“Signed by”
Sheri D. Price
Vice-chair