HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Todd Livingstone
Applicant
-and-
Superior Signs & More Inc. and Tom Minkewich
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott
Indexed as: Livingstone v. Superior Signs & More
APPEARANCES
Todd Livingstone, Applicant ) No one appearing
Superior Signs & More Inc. and ) Suzanne Porter,
Tom Minkewich, Respondents ) Counsel )
1This Application was filed with the Tribunal on January 11, 2010. The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
2On March 15, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction regarding the conduct of the hearing scheduled for March 24, 2011. The applicant was directed to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure regarding disclosure of documents and a list of witnesses. The applicant was also directed to resolve an issue regarding an undertaking given by him in a criminal proceeding to not have any contact with the personal respondent in this matter, Tom Minkewich.
3On March 15, 2011, the applicant provided a bundle of documents to the Tribunal. He did not provide a list of witnesses nor did he respond to the Tribunal’s direction regarding the undertaking in the criminal proceeding.
4On March 15, 2011, counsel for the respondents advised the Tribunal that she had spoken to the Crown Attorney’s office in the criminal matter and was advised that they would not take the position that the applicant’s attendance at the Tribunal hearing would violate his undertaking in the criminal proceeding. The respondents’ counsel sought confirmation from the Tribunal that this information was sufficient to allow the hearing to proceed on March 24, 2011.
5On March 24, 2011, the hearing convened in Windsor. 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.
6Counsel for the respondents submitted the Application should be dismissed. The respondents had six witnesses in attendance and were ready to proceed. Counsel for the respondents had spoken to the applicant on March 21, 2011 and he had indicated that he would be in attendance. Counsel argued the applicant had flouted the Tribunal’s direction concerning the provision of a list of witnesses and the criminal undertaking, and his non-attendance was a further indication that he was unable or unwilling to following the Tribunal’s direction.
7At the hearing, I dismissed the Application, with reasons to follow. My reasons are set out below.
Decision
8In Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335, 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.
9The respondents have incurred significant costs in responding to this Application and in preparing for and in attending a hearing where the applicant failed to appear. As stated above, six witnesses were in attendance ready to give evidence. The Tribunal also expended significant resources in processing this Application, in organizing the hearing date set for March 24, 2011 and in having a Vice-chair travel to Windsor to preside over the hearing.
10A 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. 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.
11I 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 in the absence of any evidence in support of his allegations, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of March, 2011.
“Signed By”
____________________________ Jennifer Scott
Vice-chair