Winsome Higgins v. Community Living Mississauga and Janet Lorimer, 2010 HRTO 30

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Winsome Higgins

Applicant

-and-

Community Living Mississauga and Janet Lorimer

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: January 7, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 30

Indexed as: Higgins v. Community Living Mississauga

1This is an Application filed June 26, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On June 26, 2009, the applicant filed an Application form (Form TR-1) together with a two page document entitled “Attachment for Human Rights Complaint”, a further four page document that appears to be the applicant’s reply to the respondents’ response to her complaint, and a Statement of Delivery form.

3On July 23, 2009, the respondents filed their Response form (TR-2) together with the Answer to Complaint they had filed with the Commission and a Statement of Delivery.

4By letter dated August 28, 2009, the Tribunal confirmed receipt of the Application, but indicated that the Application was incomplete for the following reasons: no Commission complaint form was attached to the Application (although the applicant had filed her attachment to the complaint, no actual complaint form identifying the parties had been filed); no respondent information was identified in the TR-1 form; and the Statement of Delivery did not indicate that a copy of the complaint had been served on the respondents.

5The applicant was advised that no further steps would be taken to process the Application until it was complete, and the applicant was told to provide the missing information within 21 days from the date of the letter, failing which the Application may be dismissed.

6On November 19, 2009, the Tribunal sent a further letter to the applicant, stating that more than 21 days had passed since the Tribunal’s previous letter and the Application remained incomplete. The applicant was advised that s. 43(2).1 of the Code provides that the Tribunal shall not dispose of an application without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions. The applicant was told to contact the Tribunal within ten days of the date of the letter if she wanted to make oral submissions, failing which the Tribunal would dismiss the Application.

7On the same day, the Tribunal requested and obtained from the Commission a copy of the complaint as filed by the applicant.

8The Tribunal did not hear from the applicant within ten days of the November 19, 2009 letter. On December 9, 2009, the Tribunal contacted the applicant by telephone to advise her that the Application was still incomplete. The applicant stated that she would file the complete Application that day.

9On December 14, 2009, the applicant filed a Statement of Delivery form, which appears to indicate that some document was sent to respondents’ counsel by fax on June 26, 2009, but fails to indicate what that document was.

10To date, the applicant still has not filed a complete Application form together with the complete complaint as filed with the Commission and a proper Statement of Delivery form.

11Under the transitional provisions of the Code, if the applicant wished to continue the proceeding she had commenced with the Commission, it was her responsibility to file an application with this Tribunal. The application form developed by this Tribunal is a very simple document, which primarily requires only the identification of the parties to the application, the answers to a few simple questions, and the attachment of the complaint as filed with the Commission.

12The defects in the Application form filed by the applicant are not minor. She did not identify who the respondents are to her Application. She did not attach her complete human rights complaint, and in particular she did not file the part of the complaint form that identifies the parties. She also did not file a proper Statement of Delivery form to confirm that all of the required documents had been served on the respondents.

13The applicant has been given multiple opportunities to correct these defects, and has repeatedly failed to do so.

14As the applicant has been given notice of the Tribunal’s intention to dismiss her Application and has been advised of her right to make oral submissions but has not requested the opportunity to do so, she has waived her right to make oral submissions and this matter can be addressed in writing.

15The Application is dismissed.