HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Zvonimir Basic
Applicant
- and-
Home Medical Equipment Ltd. and Don Hovis
Respondents
decision
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Basic v. Home Medical Equipment
APPEARANCES BY / wRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Zvonimir Basic, Applicant ) Self-represented
Home Medical Equipment and Don Hovis ) Jack Sloggett,
Respondents ) Representative
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in goods and services on the basis of disability.
2The applicant alleges that the respondents discriminated against him when they refused to sell a medical scooter after initially agreeing to do so. He gave the respondents a deposit and it was returned a few days later. The respondents assert that the deposit was returned when it became apparent that they would be unable to provide the scooter the applicant wanted within the short time period he required.
3Based on its review of the Application, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant might have no reasonable prospect of success in respect of the allegations. In a Case Assessment Direction dated September 29, 2010, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing would be held by teleconference to determine if there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant would be able to establish that he experienced discrimination in the manner alleged in the Application.
4The summary hearing was held on March 2, 2011. The applicant participated and was self-represented. The respondents were represented by counsel but did not otherwise participate in the summary hearing.
5During the summary hearing, the applicant provided some further details about his allegations.
6After the summary hearing, I issued Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 724, dated April 14, 2011. The Interim Decision described the additional information provided by the applicant at the summary hearing in the following terms:
The applicant said that when the sales person came to his home, he brought a scooter that was the model the applicant wanted. However, the scooter was blue and he wanted a red one. He gave the sales person a cheque and cash to cover the cost of the scooter. Over the following few days, the applicant had a number of telephone conversations with the personal respondent. The applicant alleges that during one of these conversations, he disclosed to the personal respondent that he has some mental health issues. The applicant alleges that in a subsequent conversation, the personal respondent informed the applicant that he had been speaking with a representative from a different supplier of medical equipment who had a history with the applicant. The applicant alleges that the personal respondent told him that the respondents were not prepared to do business with him, based on the information provided by this person.
It appears that the applicant is alleging that his disclosure of his mental health issues played a role in the respondent's decision to no longer sell him the scooter and this constitutes discrimination contrary to the Code.
Counsel for the respondents advised that he was not aware of any of these additional allegations. He could not respond because he was participating in the summary hearing alone without the personal respondent and without any advisor from the corporate respondent. He said that his understanding was that the respondents returned the applicant's money within a few days of the initial contact because it appeared that they would be unable to provide the applicant with the scooter he wanted within the time he wanted it.
7In the Interim Decision, I found that, based on the further information provided by the applicant, I was unable to conclude that there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant would be able to show that he experienced discrimination contrary to the Code. However, I noted that further details were required before the respondents could be asked to respond to the allegations. I directed as follows:
The applicant must set out in writing the additional issues and allegations raised during the summary hearing and provide it to the Tribunal and the respondents within 14 days of this Interim Decision. The respondents then must file a Response to the Application and any additional issues and allegations set out by the applicant within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision. Pursuant to the earlier Case Assessment Direction, the respondents must file any documents pertaining to their interactions with the applicant in September 2009.
8As the Interim Decision was dated April 14, 2011, the applicant was required to provide the additional information by April 28, 2011. On June 16, 2011, I issued a Case Assessment Direction. It noted that the Tribunal had not received any further communication from either party. The applicant was directed to immediately clarify his intentions with respect to the Application and to explain why he had not complied with the directions in the Interim Decision. The Case Assessment Direction stated that the Tribunal might dismiss the Application within two weeks if the Tribunal did not hear from the applicant within that time.
9On June 17, 2011, the respondents submitted a Response and the additional information they were required to provide. These documents were provided by Jack Sloggett, the corporate respondent's General Manager. Mr. Sloggett advised that he was now representing the respondents.
10On June 18, 2011, the applicant sent an email asking for an extension of time. He advised that he is dealing with "an urgent out of Province legal matter" that prevents him from providing the additional information as directed in the Interim Decision and Case Assessment Direction. He further indicated that he was unable to provide a date by which he could provide the information.
11The respondents opposed the time extension request.
12On June 20, 2011, the applicant sent an email stating that he wished to add another respondent.
13On June 29, 2011, I issued Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 1249. It said, in part:
Information about any additional respondents, including their relationship with the allegations in the Application, was part of the information that the applicant was required to provide pursuant to the earlier Interim Decision and Case Assessment Direction. The applicant has not provided such information and there is no basis at present to add any other respondent. The applicant has asked for an indefinite extension of time.
The applicant's request for an indefinite extension of time is denied. He has not provided an adequate explanation for why he cannot fulfil the requirements of the earlier Interim Decision and Case Assessment Direction. The applicant's request to add Mr. Malta as a respondent is also denied because he has failed to provide the information required.
I am prepared to grant a one-week time extension. The applicant must file the information required of him in the earlier Interim Decision and Case Assessment Direction by July 7, 2011. Failure to do so may cause the Tribunal to dismiss the Application as abandoned.
14On July 6, 2011, the applicant sent an email asking for a further one week extension until July 14, 2011. He said the reason for this was that he was involved in settlement discussions.
15On July 11, 2011, the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal. The email discloses information about settlement discussions between the applicant and the respondent. The applicant claims to be a "Public Legal Agent". He should be aware that it is not proper to disclose settlement discussions in a case that is being adjudicated.
16In the July 11, 2011 email, the applicant further states that he now requires an extension to August 3, 2011. He states that he is unable to provide the information required before that because he will be out of the province dealing with another legal matter.
Decision
17Three months have now elapsed since the Interim Decision that required the applicant to file additional information. In the June 29, 2011, Interim Decision, the applicant was given an extension until July 7, 2011. He did not meet that time deadline and instead has asked for two more time extensions. He has never provided an explanation for his failure to provide the information within the two weeks allotted at the time of the April 14, 2011 Interim Decision as he was directed to do in the second Interim Decision.
18In Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335, the Tribunal discussed the obligations associated with the filing of an Application:
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.
In this case, the applicant was advised that failure to provide the required information by July 7, 2011 may cause the Tribunal to dismiss the Application as abandoned. In my view, the applicant has not provided an adequate explanation for the extensive delay that has been incurred since the time of the summary hearing and his failure to file the information he has been directed to file on several occasions. Pursuant to s. 23 (1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, as amended, which gives the Tribunal to make such orders or give such directions as it considers proper prevent abuse of process in proceedings before it, I conclude that the Application should be dismissed.
Order
19The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of July, 2011.
"Signed by"
__________________________________
Brian Cook
Vice-chair