Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Julia Szabo Applicant
-and-
York University and Lillie Lum, York University and Douglas Peers, Comcare Health Services and Shelley Dietz, University of Toronto Faculty of Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry University of Toronto, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and Gail Buss, Miller Thompson LLP, Human Rights Watch and Kimberley Hui, Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Cheri DiNovo, Carly Jones and Susan Rogers, Women’s College Hospital, Family Practice Health Centre, Saint Elizabeth Health Care, Shirlee Sharkey, Cheryl Johnson, Trish P. Maxwell and Neilia Cabral Respondents
Decision
Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: March 30, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 659 Indexed as: Szabo v. York University
Appearances
Julia Szabo, Applicant | No one appearing York University, Lillie Lum, Douglas Peers, Respondents | Leanne De Filippis, Counsel Comcare Health Services and Shelley Dietz, Respondents | Margaret Szilassy, Counsel University of Toronto, Faculty of Dentistry, Respondents | Sari Springer, Counsel College of Physicians and Surgeons and Gail Buss, Respondents | Michelle Gibbs, Counsel Miller Thompson LLP, Respondent | Eric Marshall, Counsel Human Rights Watch and Kimberley Hui, Respondents | Nancy Hamm, Representative Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Cheri DiNovo, Carly Jones and Susan Rogers, Respondents | Carly Jones, Representative Women’s College Hospital Family Practice Health Centre, Respondent | Janet Murdoch, Counsel Saint Elizabeth Health Care, Shirlee Sharkey, Cheryl Johnson, Trish P. Maxwell, Neilia Cabral, Respondents | Margaret Taylor, Representative
Decision
1The applicant filed 11 different Applications against the various respondents alleging discrimination on different grounds contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended.
2A Case Assessment Direction dated September 14, 2011 (“the September 2011 CAD”) was issued by the Tribunal in files 2010-05699-I; 2010-07289-I; 2011-08417-I; 2011-09320-I; 2011-09412-I; 2011-09374-I. In it, the Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that a consolidated summary hearing be held by teleconference to determine whether the Applications should be successful on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal stated that the respondents in these files were not required to file a Response.
3The Tribunal issued a further Case Assessment Direction dated November 8, 2011 (“the November 2011 CAD”) in relation to correspondence filed by the applicant pertaining to Tribunal File 2010-05699-I requesting to add individual respondents, questions the applicant had about the consolidated summary hearing process, and because the applicant had filed a further five applications against different respondents.
4In the November 2011 CAD, the Tribunal determined that the five new Applications would also proceed by way of summary hearing at the same time as those covered by the September 2011 CAD. At paragraphs 4 – 5 of the November 2011 CAD, the Tribunal wrote:
The consolidated summary hearing means that the Tribunal will hold a teleconference hearing to determine whether some or all of the Applications should be dismissed on the basis that they have no reasonable prospect of success. As set out in the previous Case Assessment Direction at para. 6, the Summary Hearing was directed because it appears to the Tribunal that the applicant may be unable to prove discrimination on the basis of prohibited grounds, and in particular a link to the grounds cited.
The Tribunal directed that the matters be heard together and by telephone to allow for effective and efficient use of the parties’ and Tribunal’s time. In my view, the interest in appropriate and proportionate procedures, given the nature of the issues raised, outweighs the concerns expressed by the applicant. I remain of the view that the summary hearing should be held in all applications together and by teleconference.
5On December 21, 2011, a Notice of Summary Hearing was issued by the Tribunal scheduling the Summary Hearing by teleconference for March 26, 2012 at 9:30 am. The parties were given instructions on how to call-in to participate during the Summary Hearing.
6The applicant subsequently wrote to the Tribunal requesting, amongst other things, to adjourn the Summary Hearing. The Tribunal advised the applicant that she was required, pursuant to Rule 1.12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, to copy the respondents on her communications with the Tribunal. It also directed the applicant, if she was seeking an adjournment, to prepare a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), deliver it to the respondents and file a copy of it, along with a Form 23 indicating proof of delivery to the respondents, with the Tribunal.
7The applicant wrote a letter to the Tribunal dated February 16, 2012 in which she requested that the Tribunal “…postpone my cases due to medical reason until August 2012…There will be witnesses and interpreter in some of my cases”. She attached a copy of a medical note dated January 17, 2012 from Dr. Betty Chen. She also filed with the Tribunal, on February 16, 2012, a RFOP requesting to add a party, an extension of time, and that her Applications be “postponed” until August 2012 due to a medical reason and be rescheduled in-person. She referenced her medical note from Dr. Chen, although she did not attach a copy of it to the RFOP.
8By email dated March 6, 2012 and by Registrar’s letter dated March 14, 2012, the Tribunal communicated with the applicant about her RFOP. It noted that the applicant had not delivered her RFOP to all of the respondents and directed her to do so. It also directed the applicant to provide a copy of her January 17, 2012 medical note to the respondents, as it was referenced in her RFOP, but had not been provided to the respondents. Finally, the Tribunal advised the applicant that her adjournment request would not be considered by it until it received confirmation that all the respondents had received the RFOP and the medical documentation.
9A further Case Assessment Direction dated March 21, 2012 (“the March 2012 CAD”) was issued as the applicant had not communicated with the Tribunal or otherwise indicated that she had complied with the directions issued by the Registrar in its March 6 and March 14, 2012 communications to her. Her adjournment request was denied. At paragraphs 6 – 7 of the March 2012 CAD the Tribunal stated:
The summary hearing scheduled for March 26, 2012 will continue as scheduled, commencing at 9:30 a.m. At the commencement of the summary hearing, the Tribunal will establish a call-in schedule for the respondents to call in. The intention is that each file will be dealt with separately so that only the parties to a specific file will be present on the conference call while that matter is being addressed.
If the applicant fails to call into the hearing on March 26, 2012, her Applications may be dismissed as abandoned.
10On March 26, 2012, approximately 10 minutes before the summary hearing was scheduled to commence, the applicant telephoned the Tribunal and spoke with its staff to advise that “for medical reasons” she was not able to participate in the summary hearing conference call. This information was communicated to me and was relayed to the respondents at the beginning of the conference call hearing. As noted on the appearances page, all the respondents participated in the summary hearing conference call. The applicant did not call into the summary hearing.
11At the summary hearing, the respondents in file numbers 2010-05699-I; 2011-08417-I; 2011-09877-I; 2011-09320-I; 2011-09543-I; 2011-09374-I advised the Tribunal that they had not received either the applicant’s RFOP requesting to adjourn the summary hearing, or her medical note in support of her adjournment request.
12At the summary hearing, the respondents in file numbers 2011-09716-I, 2010-07289-I, 2011-9542-I, 2011-09412-I, and 2011-09636 advised the Tribunal that they had received the applicant’s RFOP but not her medical note.
13The Tribunal heard the respondents’ submissions on whether or not the summary hearing should proceed given the last minute adjournment request made by the applicant. At approximately 10:10 am, the Tribunal issued an oral decision dismissing the Applications with written reasons to follow.
14The 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. The Tribunal has commented on the responsibilities of parties appearing before it. In 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.
15The applicant has not complied with the Tribunal’s directions issued to her in its March 6, 14 and 21, 2012 communications requiring her to send all of the respondents her adjournment request RFOP and medical note. Apart from a telephone call minutes before the summary hearing was scheduled to commence and after her adjournment request had been denied, the applicant has not communicated with the Tribunal since the March communications were issued to her. Six of the respondents against which the applicant has filed an Application did not receive the applicant’s RFOP requesting an adjournment and none of the respondents received her medical documentation.
16In the circumstances of this case, the applicant’s Applications are dismissed as abandoned.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of March, 2012.
”signed by”
Alison Renton
Vice-chair