Myrlande Mathurin v. University of Toronto, 2012 HRTO 602

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Myrlande Mathurin

Applicant

-and-

University of Toronto, University of Toronto Freedom of Information Privacy Office, Rafael Eskenazi, and Howard Jones

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: March 22, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 602

Indexed As: Mathurin v. University of Toronto

AppearanceS BY

Myrlande Mathurin, Applicant ) No one appearing

University of Toronto, University of Toronto ) Freedom of Information Privacy Office, Rafael ) Sari Springer, Counsel Eskenazi, and Howard Jones, Respondents )

INTRODUCTION

1This Application was filed on June 17, 2011, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application was dismissed as abandoned at a Summary Hearing held on March 15, 2012.

BACKGROUND

2On December 15, 2011, The Tribunal sent a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties advising that a hearing by teleconference was scheduled for March 15, 2012, commencing at 9:30 a.m. The Tribunal provided 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 November 16, 2011. The CAD directed the parties to deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal copies of any further documents or cases they intended to rely upon 14 days in advance of the Summary Hearing. The applicant submitted voluminous materials to be considered on the Summary Hearing. The respondents submitted a document brief and written submissions in advance of the Summary Hearing.

4On March 15, 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.

5Counsel for the respondents participated in the Summary Hearing and submitted the Application should be dismissed as abandoned in light of the fact that the applicant did not attend the Summary Hearing.

DECISION

6In 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.

7The 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 preparing for the hearing date set for March 15, 2012.

8A 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.

9I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the Summary Hearing. In view of the applicant’s failure to attend the Summary Hearing, this Application is dismissed as abandoned.