HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christine Longtin Applicant

-and-

McArthur Family Medical Centre and Dino Smiljioc Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Christine Longtin Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Hospital – Civic Campus and Y. Charbonneau Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Christine Longtin Applicant

-and-

Royal Ottawa Hospital and R. Kunjukriskun Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Christine Longtin Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Services Board and Vern White Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Christine Longtin Applicant

-and-

Omega, Nicholson & Associates Insurance Brokers Limited and Pamela Carrier Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Christine Longtin Applicant

-and-

4027698 Canada Inc. - Securite Alain Gauthier and Alain Gautihier Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Christine Longtin Applicant

-and-

G. Therrien Construction & Renovation and Raymond Legault Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: February 28, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 339 Indexed as: Longtin v. McArthur Family Medical Centre

Appearances

Christine Longtin, Applicant ) No one appearing

McArthur Family Medical Centre, ) Dino Smiljioc, Y. Charbonneau, ) D. Boulet, Counsel R. Kunjukriskun, Respondents )

Ottawa Hospital – Civic Campus, ) J. El-Chammas, Counsel Respondent )

Royal Ottawa Hospital, ) No one appearing Respondent )

Ottawa Police Services, ) D. Patacairk, Counsel Vern White, Respondents )

Omega, Nicholson & Associates, ) Pamela Carrier Pamela Carrier, Respondents )

Sécurité Alain Gauthier, ) Alain Gauthier, Respondents ) Alain Gauthier

G. Therrien Construction & ) Renovation, Raymond Legault, ) Raymond Legault Respondents )

INTRODUCTION

1These are Applications under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). These Applications were dismissed as abandoned at a Summary Hearing on February 16, 2012, with reasons to follow. Below are the reasons for dismissal.

BACKGROUND

2On November 23, 2012, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Joint Summary Hearing to the parties advising that a hearing by teleconference was scheduled for February 16, 2012, commencing at 9:30 am and providing the call-in information needed by the parties to participate in the call. The Notice also indicated the consequences of failing to attend the hearing as follows:

If you fail to attend the hearing after receiving proper notice the HRTO may:

• proceed in your absence;
• determine you are not entitled to further notice of the proceedings;
• determine you are not entitled to present evidence or make submissions to the HRTO;
• decide the Application based solely on the materials before the HRTO;
• dismiss the Application as abandoned if the Applicant fails to attend, and;
• take any other action the HRTO considers appropriate

3The Summary Hearing was scheduled in accordance with the Tribunal's Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") of October 31, 2011. The CAD directed the applicant to proceed first at the Summary Hearing and to make argument about why the Applications should not be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success and directed her to "point to the evidence" on which she would rely to prove discrimination on the basis of a Code ground. It also directed the parties to be prepared to address certain other issues, such as delay and deferral in some of the files. It also noted that with regard to the Application against the McArthur Family Medical Centre and Dino Smiljioc, the Tribunal would deal with "the production requests at a later stage, if necessary". It directed that "No evidence or witnesses will be called during the summary hearing". It also directed that if any Requests for Order during Proceedings ("RFOP"s) were filed prior to the summary hearing, the other parties need not respond and that any such RFOPs would be dealt with at the summary hearing.

4The Applicant sent a RFOP on January 25, 2012. In her RFOP she requested an "extension" (i.e. adjournment) of the hearing in light of her request for documentation from certain of the respondents. She submitted that an "extension" of the summary hearing was required as the documents "may support the Application".

5On February 15, 2012, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, Longtin v. McArthur Family Medical Centre, 2012 HRTO 327 ("Longtin"), denying the applicant's request for an adjournment and stating that the applicant's request for production would be addressed at the summary hearing.

6On February 16, 2012, the applicant did not call and was not present at the Summary Hearing. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited thirty minutes until 10:00 a.m. At 10:00 a.m., the applicant was still not in attendance.

7The respondents and counsel participating in the Summary Hearing made submissions at that time, confirming the positions they had taken in their Responses and denying any discrimination. They also submitted that the Applications should be dismissed as abandoned in light of the fact that the applicant did not attend the Summary Hearing.

8I have been advised that after receipt of the Tribunal's Interim Decision, Longtin, the applicant wrote to the Registrar advising that she could not attend without the documentation she sought. The Registrar responded to her correspondence, confirming that the Summary Hearing would proceed as scheduled, and advising that she could raise her concerns at the Summary Hearing.

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 respondents have 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 16, 2012.

11A Tribunal Application is a legal proceeding commenced by the applicant. It is the applicant's responsibility to attend the hearing. In the absence of the applicant, 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.

12I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the Summary Hearing. In view of the applicant's failure to attend the Summary Hearing, these Applications are dismissed as abandoned.

Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of February, 2012.

"signed by"_____________

Maureen Doyle Vice-chair