HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Marija Milkovic
Applicant
-and-
Lowe's Companies Canada, ULC
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Judith Keene
Indexed as: Milkovic v. Lowe's Companies Canada, ULC
Introduction
1This Decision is in respect of an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex.
2A hearing in this matter has been scheduled for February 22, 2013. The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, sent to the parties on June 28, 2012 summarized the parties’ requirements as follows:
Unless otherwise directed by the HRTO, not later than January 8, 2013, you must deliver to every other party and file with the HRTO:
a list of all documents you intend to rely on at the hearing;
a copy of each document on that list for the HRTO;
a copy of every document on that list for each party or confirmation every document has already been provided to the other parties;
a witness list that includes the name of every witness, including expert witnesses, you intend to present to the HRTO;
a statement summarizing the expected evidence of each witness;
where you intend to rely on the evidence of a proposed expert witness, a copy of the expert’s written report or a full summary of the expert’s proposed evidence and the expert’s curriculum vitae;
the Statement of Delivery of the Rule 16.2 list and documents on the other parties
3The applicant did not meet this requirement.
4In the Tribunal’s experience, parties who fail to comply with their pre-hearing obligations often do not attend hearings. See Lukusa v. Toronto Police Service, 2012 HRTO 2054 at para. 5. 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. 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.
5A Case Assessment Direction (CAD) was sent to the parties on January 23, 2013, to alert the applicant to the fact that the Tribunal had not received documents from her in compliance with her obligations under Rules 16 and 17. The CAD directed the applicant to file the necessary documents immediately, and concluded that “if the applicant has not done so within 7 days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned”.
6The deadline has passed and the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s CAD, or otherwise contacted the Tribunal. On January 31, the respondent wrote to the tribunal to request that the Application be dismissed as abandoned.
7In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application, and the Application is dismissed. The hearing scheduled for February 22, 2013 is cancelled.
Dated at Toronto, this 12^th^ day of February, 2013.
”signed by”
Judith Keene
Vice-chair