Jeffery Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2010 HRTO 2192

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jeffery Seberras

Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: November 2, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2192

Indexed as: Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on June 2, 2009, which alleged that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to employment because of his disability.

2On August 18, 2009, the Tribunal’s Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, which informed the applicant that the Application appears to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it does not allege a ground or area of discrimination under the Code, and therefore does not appear to raise an issue that the Tribunal can resolve. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions to explain why the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The applicant did not file any submissions.

3On May 18, 2010, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1114, which decided that it was not plain and obvious that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, but also stated that the Tribunal had not made a final decision with respect to the issue of jurisdiction. The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a full Response to the Application, which included submissions on the issues of jurisdiction and deferral, and directed the applicant file a full Reply to the Response, which included submissions in reply to the respondent’s submissions on these two issues.

4The respondent filed a Response on June 21, 2010, which provided full submissions on the issues of jurisdiction and deferral.

5The applicant did not file a Reply to the Response, and the time for doing so has now passed.

6I am concerned about the applicant’s failure to respond to the Tribunal’s Notice of Intent to Dismiss, and his failure to file a Reply as directed by the Tribunal’s Interim Decision.

7In Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335, the Tribunal stated 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.

8In the circumstances, the applicant is directed to file written submissions on the issue of jurisdiction and deferral within five days of the date of this Interim Decision. If he does not do so, the Tribunal will deem him to have abandoned his Application and close the file.

9I am not seized of this matter.