Dominique v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2012 HRTO 1958

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stephen Dominique Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission, Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service and John La Bell Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Decision Date: October 16, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1958 Indexed as: Dominique v. Toronto Transit Commission

APPEARANCES

Stephen Dominique, Applicant No one appearing

Toronto Transit Commission, Respondent Marnie Tolensky, Counsel

Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service and John La Bell, Respondents Glenn Chu, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

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”), alleging discrimination in services on the basis of race, colour, citizenship and ethnic origin. The applicant indicated in his Application that he wished to be contacted by mail and e-mail.

BACKGROUND

2Pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction dated February 2, 2012, (the “CAD”), the Tribunal directed that a Summary Hearing would be scheduled by way of conference call. This direction was made pursuant to Rules 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application would succeed. The CAD was e-mailed and mailed to the applicant on February 2, 2012, at the addresses he provided in the Application.

3A Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the parties on February 17, 2012, advising that the summary hearing would commence at 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2012. The Notice of Summary Hearing also advised the parties how to connect to the conference call.

4On March 2, 2012, the copy of the CAD mailed to the applicant was returned to the Tribunal with a hand-written notation stating, “No such person”.

5On May 4, 2012, Tribunal staff e-mailed the applicant, attaching both the CAD and the Notice of Summary Hearing, and asked him to confirm his current mailing address and receipt of both documents. The Tribunal received no reply from the Applicant.

6The summary hearing was convened by conference call on May 17, 2012, at the scheduled time. Both counsel for the respondents were present, but not the applicant. Counsel for the police respondents advised that he had information with respect to the applicant’s whereabouts on that day, and I ordered that he provide the information because it would assist me in determining whether the applicant had received the Notice of Summary Hearing and whether I should deem him to have abandoned his Application.

7Counsel said that the applicant was incarcerated at Maplehurst Correctional Facility in Milton where, as far as counsel understood, the applicant would be permitted to use a telephone for the purposes of a hearing. He had no knowledge of whether the applicant had received the Notice of Summary Hearing or whether he had requested to use a telephone to participate in the conference call.

8The parties agreed that, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to reschedule a summary hearing, and appropriate for the Tribunal to send a Notice of Rescheduled Hearing to the applicant at Maplehurst Correctional Facility, as well as at the e-mail and street address provided on the Application. Counsel for the police respondents confirmed that the address for Maplehurst Correctional Facility is indicated on its website. An Interim Decision was issued to allow the summary hearing to be rescheduled (2012 HRTO 1032).

9On May 23, 2012, the Tribunal sent the Interim Decision, the CAD and a Notice of Rescheduled Summary Hearing to the applicant at Maplehurst Correctional Facility, using the address on its website, as well as at the e-mail and street address provided on the Application. The documents sent to his street address were returned with “moved/unknown… return to sender” labels on the envelopes, but the documents sent to the Maplehurst Correctional Facility were not returned.

SUMMARY HEARING

10The rescheduled summary hearing was convened by conference call on October 10, 2012, at the scheduled time. Both counsel for the respondents were present, but not the applicant. The Tribunal stood the matter down for 30 minutes, but still the applicant did not appear. Counsel for the Toronto Transit Commission advised that she had attempted to deliver documents to the applicant at the Facility on September 25 and 26, 2012, but was told that he was no longer there. She does not know when he left the Facility, nor did counsel for the police respondents.

11The applicant has not acknowledged receipt of any of the documents sent to him in 2012, nor has he provided a new address for the Tribunal to use. If the applicant changed email addresses or residence address, and wished to receive correspondence from the Tribunal at an address other than the one identified in the Application, he was required to advise the Tribunal of this. Rule 1.13 of the Tribunal’s Rules states that “[a] party and a party’s representative must notify the Tribunal and all parties and their representatives, in writing, of any change in their contact information, as soon as possible”. If the applicant did not receive notice of the proceedings, it is because he did not update his contact information with the Tribunal.

12In Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335, at paragraphs 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.

13In Szabo v. York University, 2012 HRTO 659, the Tribunal referred to the above quotation and stated the following:

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.

14Given that the applicant did not appear at the summary hearing; given that the Tribunal must ensure that it disposes of applications fairly, justly and expeditiously as stated in the cases above; given that the respondents have twice now appeared at dates scheduled for the summary hearing; and given that if the applicant did not receive Notice of the Rescheduled Hearing it was because of his disregard for the Tribunal’s Rules, I dismiss the Application as abandoned.