Hiroshi Noda v. Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, 2011 HRTO 331

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hiroshi Noda

Applicant

-and-

Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: February 17, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 331

Indexed as: Noda v. Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society

APPEARANCES

Hiroshi Noda, Applicant ) No one appearing

Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, Respondent ) Seann McAleese, ) Counsel )

1This Application was filed with the Tribunal on February 13, 2010. The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ethnic origin and reprisal.

2The respondent requested early Dismissal of the Application on the basis that, in the course of grievance arbitration proceedings, the applicant had signed a full and final release with respect to the same matter.

3A hearing date was set for February 15, 2011, in London Ontario. On October 19, 2010 the Tribunal sent a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties at the contact information provided by them in the Application and the Response, respectively. The Notices were not returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable.

4On February 15, 2011, the hearing convened. The applicant did not appear. I stood the matter down for 30 minutes to await his arrival or some explanation for his failure to attend. No communication was received by the Tribunal.

5Counsel for the respondent advised that he had been in contact with the applicant the preceding day and had asked for consent to adjourn the hearing, but the applicant had refused.

6The respondent submitted that the applicant was an experienced litigant who had participated in grievance proceedings, and was aware of the hearing date in this matter, noting that the applicant had refused his consent to adjourn the hearing date. He submitted that the respondent had been put to considerable costs and inconvenience in preparing for and attending at the scheduled hearing. He submitted that this Application should be dismissed, where the applicant has neither sought an adjournment nor appeared.

8At the hearing, I dismissed the Application as abandoned, with my reasons to follow. My reasons are set out below.

DECISION

9In Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335 the Tribunal discussed an applicant’s responsibilities when bringing a human rights application at paragraphs 4-7 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. 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.

10The respondent has spent time, money and resources in responding to this Application and in attending a hearing where the applicant failed to appear. The Tribunal has also expended significant resources in processing this Application and in organizing the hearing date set for February 15, 2011.

11A Tribunal application is a legal proceeding commenced by the applicant. It is the applicant’s responsibility to attend the hearing and to provide evidence in support of the allegations raised in the application. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal is unable to proceed with the application and there is no onus or responsibility on the respondents to provide evidence in response to allegations where the applicant has failed to appear at the hearing and no evidence has been provided by the applicant in support of his allegations.

12I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing date and in the absence of any correspondence or communication from the applicant to explain his failure to appear at the hearing and as a result of his failure to appear and provide any evidence in support of his allegations, the Application is dismissed.