Jenkins v. Steeves, 2013 HRTO 187

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

William Jenkins Applicant

-and-

Adam Steeves Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: February 1, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 187 Indexed as: Jenkins v. Steeves

APPEARANCES

William Jenkins, Applicant ) No one appearing Adam Steeves, Respondent ) C. April Stewart, Representative

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), but failed to appear for a summary hearing. I issued an oral decision dismissing his Application with written reasons to follow. The following are my reasons.

BACKGROUND

2On June 30, 2011, the applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal, and on September 23, 2011, the respondents filed a Response. On May 23, 2012, the parties attended a mediation at the Tribunal, which did not result in a settlement of the case.

3On August 20, 2012, the respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing because, in his view, the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant did not file a Response to the Request.

4On October 18, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction which granted the respondent's Request, and informed the parties that a half-day summary hearing would be held by conference call on January 24, 2013.

5On October 26, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for January 24, 2013 from 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM. The Notice directed the parties to call a phone number and enter a conference identification number, both of which were provided in the Notice. The Notice also warned the parties that if they failed to attend the hearing, the Tribunal may take a number of steps, including dismissing the Application as abandoned if the applicant failed to attend, or take any other action that the Tribunal considered appropriate.

6On November 13, 2012, the paralegal firm that was on record as representing the applicant filed a letter with the Tribunal, which stated that it was no longer representing him.

7On January 24, 2013, the respondent called into the conference call at the time that was set out in the Notice of Summary Hearing, but the applicant did not. The Tribunal's standard practice where a party does not attend is to confirm in the Tribunal's file that the Hearing Notice was sent to the missing party at the address provided, and wait half an hour. If the party is still not present, the Tribunal proceeds in the party's absence without further notice to that party. Where the applicant is not present, this will generally lead to the dismissal of the Application. See Edward v. Moda at Home, 2009 HRTO 568 at para. 2.

8I confirmed that the Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the applicant's representative at the address provided in the Application, and after waiting for half an hour, I dismissed the Application.

ANALYSIS

9The applicant commenced a legal proceeding when he filed his Application with the Tribunal. It is the applicant's responsibility to attend the summary hearing and make submissions. In the absence of such submissions, the Tribunal is unable to proceed with the Application and there is no onus or responsibility on the respondent to provide submissions in response.

10Furthermore, the 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 to the public, whose tax dollars fund the Tribunal. In Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335, the Tribunal stated at paras. 4-7:

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.

11The respondent expended significant resources responding to the Application, participating in a mediation, and preparing for and attending the summary hearing. The respondent is unable to recover any costs resulting from this process, including the applicant's non-attendance at the hearing, because this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award costs. See Dunn v. United Transportation Union, Local 104, 2008 HRTO 405. The Tribunal has also expended significant resources processing the Application, scheduling and holding a mediation, and scheduling and holding a hearing. In these circumstances, it would not be fair, just and expeditious to reschedule the hearing.

ORDER

12The Application is dismissed.