Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Robert Cameron Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities Respondent
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: December 13, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 2240 Indexed As: Cameron v. Ontario (Training, Colleges and Universities)
Appearances
Robert Finley Cameron, Applicant ) Self-Represented
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, Respondent ) Melanie Herbin, Counsel
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"). The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him in the provision of services on the basis of race and disability.
2Following a review of the Application, a Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") was issued on June 1, 2011, directing that a summary hearing ("hearing") take place. The summary hearing was held by conference call on December 8, 2011.
3At the hearing, the applicant raised a number of procedural issues with respect to the scheduling of the hearing. He stated that the Tribunal and the respondent had not complied with the Rules regarding the scheduling of this matter. He suggested repeatedly that the Tribunal had taken direction from the Attorney General in its handling of this matter. The applicant also claimed that the respondent had not complied with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. The applicant stated that he was not prepared to proceed with the hearing.
4In an attempt to clarify his position, I asked the applicant why he was not prepared to proceed. It appeared after several attempts that the applicant was not prepared to proceed because the Tribunal and the respondent had not complied with the Rules respecting the re-scheduling of this hearing from its original scheduled date of November 16, 2011. In particular his concern was that the respondent had not, when it requested a re-scheduling of the hearing, provided five alternative dates as required by the Rules. While referring to a Rule, what the applicant was referring to was the Tribunal's Practice Direction which provides that when a party seeks to re-schedule a hearing or mediation the requestor must endeavour to provide alternative dates.
5After some considerable period of time dealing with what were essentially technical procedural objections to the matter proceeding, I asked the applicant, assuming for the sake of argument that all of his procedural concerns were well-founded, why he could not proceed today. In response, the applicant disclosed that he had a job interview and had to leave in 10 minutes. I asked the applicant why, if that was the case, he had not informed the Tribunal and respondent of this previously. The applicant asserted that he sent an email on November 25, 2011, to the Tribunal and respondent indicating that he was not available on December 8 due to prior commitments. The respondent indicated that it had not received this email. A subsequent search of the Tribunal's records indicated that an email was received by the Tribunal on November 26, 2011 where, amongst other things, the applicant advised the Tribunal that he was not available on December 8, 2011. This email was not copied to the respondent. Further to a prior direction of the Registrar that email or other correspondence which was not copied to the other parties would not be responded to, this email was not responded to nor placed in the Tribunal's file.
6I advised the parties that I considered Mr. Cameron's announcement that he could not proceed with the summary hearing because he had to attend a job interview as a request to adjourn the hearing. The respondent did not consent to the adjournment request. The respondent indicated that the applicant had, contrary to his primary position, been offered a number of dates to choose from in correspondence sent by email on October 18 and November 7, 2011. The respondent stated that the applicant chose not to respond to either email and accordingly the Tribunal selected the date based on the advice of the respondent that it was available on December 8, 2011 (amongst others of the dates offered). The respondent also stated that there is no indication that the applicant advised the Tribunal that he was unavailable on the selected date.
7Despite the respondent's submission, which had considerable merit, I adjourned the hearing with reasons to follow. The file will be returned to the Registrar to be rescheduled. The applicant's ultimate claim is that he did not receive the Tribunal's correspondence of October 18 and November 7, 2011, asking for his input in respect of a number of proposed dates for this hearing. These communications were by email and the applicant claims that he did not receive them. He claims as well that when he received in the mail the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing dated November 15, 2011, he wrote to the Tribunal to advise that he was not available. He claims that this email was sent to the Tribunal and the respondent on November 25, 2011. As indicated above the respondent did not receive this email but it was received by the Tribunal.
8Despite my misgivings about these failed communications, I am not prepared at this stage to conclude that the applicant is deliberately misleading the Tribunal although he is largely the author of his own misfortune in his repeated failure to comply with the Tribunal's Rules