HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jagdev Bains
Applicant
-and-
City of Ottawa
Respondent
decision
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Bains v. Ottawa (City)
1This is an Application filed pursuant to section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), in which the applicant alleges that his right to be free of discrimination in goods and services on the grounds of colour, place of origin, citizenship and sex have been infringed by the respondents.
THE SUMMARY HEARING
2In a Case Assessment Direction dated July 8, 2011 the Tribunal on its own initiative, directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed.
3A Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the parties on October 28, 2011, advising that the summary hearing would commence at 9:30 a.m. on December 7, 2011. The Notice of Summary Hearing also advised the parties how to connect to the teleconference. The Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the applicant at the address provided by him to the Tribunal. The applicant was further advised of the date by correspondence from the Tribunal sent to him on November 14, 2011. The applicant responded to the Tribunal the same day indicating that the date and time set was agreeble to him.
4The summary hearing was convened by teleconference on December 7, 2011 at the scheduled time. The respondent was present at the summary hearing. The applicant did not attend the hearing.
5I advised those present on the call that the hearing would resume at 10:00 a.m. or whenever the applicant attended on the call, whichever occurred first. At 10:00 a.m., the applicant was still not present.
6I was satisfied at the hearing that the applicant had received timely and proper notice of the summary hearing. I was not aware of any indication that the applicant would not be attending the hearing, to the contrary he confirmed that the time and date of the event was agreeable to him on November 14, 2011. In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for his failure to attend the hearing, I dismissed the Application as abandoned at the hearing.
7The Application is dismissed as abandoned.
RECONSIDERATION REQUEST
8Subsequent to the hearing the Tribunal received correspondence from the Applicant received at 12:15 p.m. on December 7, 2011 the day of the summary hearing. The applicant indicates that he attempted to connect to the telephone conference call but was unable to do so.
9The respondent responded to the applicant’s correspondence. The respondent questions why the applicant was unable to connect when they and the Vice-chair were able to do so, as well as the fact that the applicant appears to have made no other efforts to contact the Tribunal prior to the email correspondence sent almost three hours after the fact. The respondent suggests that the hearing should not be re-scheduled but that the Tribunal deal with the matter based on the written submissions.
10The applicant sent further communication to the Tribunal on December 8, 2011 in which he indicates, amongst many other things unrelated to this issue, as follows:
Further it is truthfully stated that we had connected to the conference exactly at 9.30 AM and we learnt from the operator of the Bell Conference System that there is nobody available on line and further that it is not 9.30 AM at their end (due to time difference).This may be verified from the operator.
11The applicant resides in Saskatchewan. I take it from this that the applicant did attempt to attend the conference call at 9:30 a.m. Central Standard Time and not 9:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, the time indicated on the Notice of Summary Hearing.
12The Tribunal may of its own Motion reconsider a Decision it has made. I also find that the applicant’s request to re-schedule the summary hearing can in these circumstanes be treated as if it were a Request for Reconsideration.
13The Tribunal has issued Rules governing the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers. Rule 26 states, in part:
26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision.
26.5. A Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that:
(a) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or
(b) the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or
(c) the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or
(d) other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
DIRECTION
14If the respondent wishes to make any submissions on the reconsideration issue they may do so within 21 days of the date of this Decision.
OTHER MATTERS
15The applicant has raised a number of other issues in his various emails that reflect a misunderstanding of the nature of the summary hearing. In particular, the applicant complains that the respondent has not produced certain documents. The applicant is reminded to review the Case Assessment Direction issued on July 8, 2011. In particular the applicant is reminded that Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure do not apply to a summary hearing therefore there is no obligation on the part of the respondent to produce the materials being requested.
16The language employed by the applicant in his submissions has been inflamatory at times and disrespectul towards the respondent and its representative.
17The treatment of the respondent is not conducive to the fair, just and expeditious adjudication of these cases. The Tribunal has commented on the responsibilities of parties appearing before it. In Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335, 2009 HRTO 335, at paras. 4-7, the Tribunal stated as follows:
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.
In Cochrane v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2010 HRTO 913, 2010 HRTO 913 at paras. 8-9, the Tribunal stated as follows:
Parties to a Tribunal application are engaged in a dispute which has been brought before the justice system. Before the Tribunal, as in courts and other tribunals, each side is entitled to access these dispute resolution processes, and may make submissions supporting their point of view. The Tribunal’s process provides access to a fair and neutral decision maker, who decides the application based upon his or her findings of facts and law as they apply to a particular case.
It is understandable that parties may have strong feelings about the events that gave rise to the dispute. They may disagree strongly with the submissions made by each other, be upset about the fact that the matter is before the Tribunal, or disagree with decisions made by the adjudicator. Parties and their representatives are required, however, to conduct themselves in the Tribunal’s process with courtesy and respect for each other and the Tribunal. While it is proper to express disagreement with another party’s submissions or evidence, it is never acceptable to descend into personal insults, the use of uncivil language, or discriminatory comments.
DIRECTION
18The applicant is directed to be respectful in the manner in which he communicates with the respondent and to refrain from using inflammatory language in setting out his positions.
19I am not seized in respect of the request for reconsideration.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of December, 2011.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair