Oliveira v. Bradford & District Produce Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1682

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Fred Oliveira

Applicant

-and-

Bradford & District Produce Ltd. and Sal Pirri

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: October 7, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1682

Indexed as: Oliveira v. Bradford & District Produce Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Fred Oliveira, Applicant

No submissions filed

Bradford & District Produce Ltd. and Sal Pirri, Respondents

Sheryl Johnson, Counsel

1The hearing in this matter is scheduled for October 15 and 16, 2013 pursuant to a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing dated March 6, 2013 (“the hearing notice”). In the hearing notice, the Tribunal set out the parties’ disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

2The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction dated September 12, 2013 (“the September 12 CAD”) in which it alerted the applicant to the fact that he had failed to comply with his disclosure obligations. Further, the Tribunal directed the applicant to comply with his obligations within 7 days of the September 12 CAD and warned that if he did not comply, the Tribunal may dismiss the Application as abandoned. The Tribunal sent this to the applicant by courier and it was not returned as being undeliverable.

3The applicant did not comply with the Tribunal’s directions or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal. The respondents wrote to the Tribunal, copying the applicant, on September 20, 2013 confirming that they had not received the applicant’s materials and requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application.

4The Tribunal issued another Case Assessment Direction dated September 23, 2012 (“the September 23 CAD”) in which it noted that the applicant still had not complied with the Tribunal’s directions with respect to his disclosure obligations. The Tribunal directed the applicant to file immediately his disclosure material, copying the respondents, failing which his Application would be dismissed as abandoned. The Tribunal issued the September 23 CAD to the applicant by courier and it was not returned as being undeliverable.

5The applicant still has not complied with the Tribunal’s directions, and has not communicated with the Tribunal. The respondents wrote to the Tribunal on October 1, 2013, copying the applicant, advising that they had not received the applicant’s materials.

6The Tribunal has, in a number of decisions, addressed the responsibilities that applicants have once they file an application. In Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335 at paras. 4 to 7, the Tribunal stated:

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.

7In this case, despite the hearing notice setting out the parties’ disclosure obligations, the September 12 CAD and the September 23 CAD being issued specifically directing the applicant to comply with his obligations and warning about the consequences of his failure to comply, the applicant has not filed the materials that he is required to file. This includes, as set out specifically in the CADs, a list of his witnesses and a summary of their anticipated evidence, and the documentation upon which he intends to rely at the hearing including his loss of wages documentation. He has not filed a Response to the respondents’ Request for Order During Proceedings and he has not communicated with the Tribunal.

8Accordingly, in the circumstances of this case, the Application is dismissed as being abandoned and the hearing dates are cancelled.