<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
B E T W E E N:
Wayne Holness
Applicant
-and-
Lucav Corporation (Vaticano Restaurant)
Respondent
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
DECISION
______________________________________________________________________
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
Date: August 27, 2012
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
Citation: 2012 HRTO 1635
<!--mc:cls:cover-line-->
Indexed as: Holness v. Lucav Corporation (Vaticano Restaurant)
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## APPEARANCES
Wayne Holness, Applicant ) No one appearing
Lucav Corporation (Vaticano Restaurant), ) Anthony J. Potestio, Counsel
Respondent )
## INTRODUCTION
[1] The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), but failed to appear for the hearing of the merits of his Application. I issued an oral decision dismissing his Application with written reasons to follow. The following are my reasons.
## BACKGROUND
[2] On October 14, 2010, the applicant filed an Application, and on December 16, 2010, the respondent filed a Response. On May 17, 2011, the parties attended a mediation at the Tribunal, which did not result in a settlement of the case.
[3] On January 26, 2012, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, which informed them that the Tribunal had scheduled a hearing of the Application for August 24, 2012 at 655 Bay Street, 14<sup>th</sup> Floor, Toronto, Ontario commencing at 9:30 A.M. The Notice also warned the parties that if they failed to attend the hearing, the Tribunal may take a number of steps, including dismissing the Application as abandoned if the applicant failed to attend, or take any other action that the Tribunal considered appropriate.
[4] On August 22, 2012, the applicant called the Tribunal to confirm the date and time of the hearing. Tribunal staff spoke with the applicant, and confirmed the date, location and time of the hearing.
[5] On August 24, 2012, the respondent attended the hearing at the place and time that was set out in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, but the applicant did not appear. I commenced the hearing at 10:00 AM after confirming with Tribunal staff that the applicant had not called in to explain his absence, and then dismissed the Application.
## ANALYSIS
[6] Based on the above facts, I am satisfied that the applicant was aware of the date, location and time of the hearing, but decided not to attend. The applicant commenced a legal proceeding when he filed his Application with the Tribunal. It is the applicant’s responsibility to attend the hearing and 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 respondent to provide evidence in response to allegations.
[7] In addition, the Tribunal has a duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly and expeditiously. See section 40 of the Code and Rule 1.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. This duty is not only in relation to applicants, but also in relation to respondents, who may expend significant resources responding to human rights Applications, and the public, whose tax dollars fund the Tribunal. In Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, [2009 HRTO 335](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/335), the Tribunal stated at paras. 4-7:
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.
[8] Furthermore, the respondent is unable to recover any costs resulting from this process, including the applicant’s non-attendance at the hearing, because this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award costs. See Dunn v. United Transportation Union, Local 104, [2008 HRTO 405](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/405).
## ORDER
[9] The Application is dismissed.
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
Dated at Toronto, this 27<sup>th</sup> day of August, 2012.
“signed by”
__________________________________
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel