HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Donna Watkinson
Applicant
-and-
Fred Victor Shelter Corporation
Respondent
AND BETWEEN:
Donna Watkinson
Applicant
-and-
Canada Post Corporation, Denis Ricard, Albert Elmeleh, Norm Cohen, Jean Cote, Donald Anderson, Paris Hilton, Fred Victor Agency, YWCA Toronto, Pharmasave (Bathurst & Sheppard) and David Anderson
Respondents
AND BETWEEN:
Donna Watkinson
Applicant
-and-
Ministry of Community and Social Services,
Hazel Romaine and Jermyne Graham
Respondents
AND BETWEEN:
Donna Watkinson
Applicant
-and-
Canada Post (Queen St., at Carlaw), Denis Ricard, Albert Elmeleh, Norm Cohen, Jean Cote, Donald Anderson, and David Anderson
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Mark Hart
Indexed as: Watkinson v. Fred Victor Shelter Corporation
APPEARANCES
Donna Lynn Watkinson, Applicant
No one appearing
Fred Victor Shelter Corporation, Respondent
No one appearing
Canada Post Corporation, Respondent
No one appearing
Ministry of Community and Social Services, Hazel Romaine and Jermyne Graham, Respondents
Geoffrey Baker, Counsel
YWCA Toronto, Respondent
Frances Gallop, Counsel
1These are four Applications filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2In a Case Assessment Direction dated March 22, 2012, the Tribunal directed that the Application filed in Tribunal File Number 2011-10556-I proceed by way of summary hearing. In a subsequent Case Assessment Direction dated June 20, 2012, the three further Applications filed by the applicant were consolidated with the first Application and it was directed that a consolidated summary hearing be held to determine whether the Applications should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that they will succeed. The respondents were not required to file a Response.
3The Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the applicant’s address as set out in her first Application (the “first address”) and also to a second address as set out in her three further Applications (the “second address”). While mail sent to the applicant at the first address was returned to the Tribunal, the Notice of Summary Hearing sent to her at the second address set out in her three further Applications was not returned. The last of the three further Applications filed by the applicant (Tribunal file no. 2012-11652-I) is dated May 28, 2012 and shows the second address as the applicant’s personal contact information. The Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the applicant at the second address by letter dated July 17, 2012, and advised the parties that the summary hearing was scheduled for October 24, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. by teleconference. The instructions to dial in to the hearing were set out in the Notice.
4The applicant did not appear on the teleconference hearing on October 24, 2012. I waited the customary half hour to allow the applicant the opportunity to appear, but she did not do so.
5I was advised by counsel for the Ministry of Community and Social Services (“MCSS”) that the Ministry has records regarding the applicant’s current address, as she is in receipt of ODSP benefits. MCSS records show the second address as continuing to be the applicant’s current address. ODSP benefits are paid to the applicant in two parts: the first portion is paid directly to her landlord by way of direct deposit; and the remaining portion is picked up by the applicant at her local ODSP office. Between the time the Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the applicant on July 17, 2012 and the summary hearing on October 24, 2012, the applicant was issued three ODSP payments: the first at the end of July, the second at the end of August, and the third on September 28, 2012. None of these payments have been returned by the landlord on the basis that the applicant does not continue to reside at the second address. The applicant also has an obligation to advise the ODSP office if there is any change in her address, and she has not done so. MCSS does have a record indicating that on September 18, 2012, the applicant came in to an ODSP office and asked for information about emergency shelters; but there is no indication that the applicant has moved away from the second address.
6On the basis of the foregoing, I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the summary hearing and failed to attend. It is an applicant’s obligation to advise the Tribunal if there is any change to her or his contact information. When a summary hearing is scheduled, it is the applicant’s obligation to attend the summary hearing and to make oral submissions as to whether her or his application has a reasonable prospect of success. In the absence of submissions from the applicant, it is not the responsibility of the Tribunal or the other parties to try to piece together how it is that the allegations raised in an application may have a reasonable prospect of success.
7Accordingly, I find that the four Applications should be dismissed as abandoned, due to the applicant’s failure to attend the teleconference summary hearing.
8Counsel for YWCA Toronto and counsel for MCSS requested that I also dismiss the Applications on the basis that the allegations raised in the Applications do not provide any specific basis setting out any link to a prohibited ground under the Code and do not provide any specific basis upon which to hold either of these two respondents responsible for the allegations that form the basis of the Applications.
9The Applications essentially raise allegations about certain inheritance and other cheques that the applicant believes were sent to her, but which she says she never received. The applicant appears to believe that these cheques were stolen or withheld from her. On the basis of my review of the Applications, I agree with the submission that the Applications fail to provide any specific link between these allegations and any prohibited ground under the Code. I also agree with the submission that the Applications fail to disclose any specific basis upon which to hold the respondents YWCA Toronto and MCSS responsible for the allegations. The Application as against YWCA Toronto only indicates that the applicant lived for a brief period in a shelter operated by that agency. The Application as against MCSS does not provide any specific basis upon which it is alleged that this Ministry or the individuals named were involved in or responsible for any mail that may have been withheld or stolen from the applicant.
10Counsel for YWCA Toronto and MCSS request that the Applications be dismissed on the basis that they do not have a reasonable prospect of success due to a concern that, in future, the applicant may try to file a further Application raising the same allegations.
11There is good reason for such a concern. On March 12, 2009, the applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal (2009-01929-I) identifying MCSS as a respondent and alleging that her ODSP benefits were being withheld from her. This Application was determined to be incomplete and the applicant was asked to provide further information in order to complete the Application so that it could be served. When the applicant failed to do so, the file was closed administratively without the Application being served.
12Then on February 20, 2011, the applicant filed a further Application (2011-08256-I) which named Canada Post, a women’s residence, the Parkview Arms Hotel and other individuals as respondents. The allegations raised in this Application are identical to the allegations raised in the four Applications before me. The February 20, 2011 Application also was determined to be incomplete, and was closed administratively without being served when the applicant failed to provide the required information.
13Having reviewed the four Applications as filed with the Tribunal, I find that the four Applications before me also should be dismissed on the basis that the allegations as set out in these Applications do not have any reasonable prospect of success in establishing either that the allegations raised are linked to any prohibited ground of discrimination in the Code or that the identified respondents are responsible for the alleged conduct that forms the basis of these Applications.
14I further note that, prior to the summary hearing and in accordance with the Tribunal’s direction, counsel for Canada Post filed written submissions taking the position that this Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to hear matters relating to it, as Canada Post is a federally regulated enterprise. In this, counsel for Canada Post is most certainly correct, as held in this Tribunal’s decision in Phipps v. Canada Post Corporation, 2010 HRTO 2178. Accordingly, the Application as against Canada Post Corporation is dismissed on the still further basis that it is beyond this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
15For all of the foregoing reasons, all four Applications are dismissed in their entirety.
Dated at Toronto, this 29^th^ day of October, 2012.
“Signed by”
Mark Hart
Vice-chair