Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Graeme Innes
Applicant
-and-
Metro Ontario Inc. and Danielle Campbell
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Innes v. Metro Ontario Inc.
Introduction
1This is 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 gender identity, sex and reprisal.
2The applicant has filed several Requests for Order During Proceedings (Request) seeking the addition of an individual respondent and the production of documents.
3The Requests are denied.
4The Request to add an individual respondent is denied because the applicant provides no reasons for the addition of the identified respondent who does not appear to have been involved in any of the events described in the Application and is not referred to in the Application.
5The Requests for production are denied. The applicant provides no particular reason for the Requests other than to ensure preservation of documents. That is not a sufficient reason to require a party to produce material at this early stage of the proceeding. When a hearing date is set the parties will be advised of their obligations to provide to all other parties any arguably relevant documents in their possession.
Other Matters
6Having reviewed the file I note that the applicant has on a couple of occasions made inappropriate comments about counsel for Metro including that she has no authority to represent the organizational respondent. Other inappropriate comments have been made about the individual respondent and other individuals not yet involved in this case.
7The general tone of the applicant’s correspondence with the respondent is inappropriate. The applicant is reminded of Tribunal’s Rule 1.12.1:
All materials filed with the Tribunal must be courteous and respectful of the Tribunal and other participants
8The Tribunal has commented on the responsibilities of parties appearing before it. In Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335, at paras. 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. 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.
9The Tribunal has the power, pursuant to s. 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, as amended (“SPPA”), to make such orders or give such directions in proceedings before it as it considers proper to prevent abuses of its process. The Tribunal has applied this power to dismiss Applications where parties have engaged in vexatious conduct in the Tribunal’s process. See for example Nouraghighi v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2009 HRTO 2085; Okunbor v. Hopewell Logistics, 2009 HRTO 2124 and Vizcaya v. University of Toronto 2012 HRTO 916.
Order and DIRECTIons
10The Tribunal makes the following Orders and Directions:
a. The applicant’s Requests are denied at this time for the reasons set out above.
b. In his Application the applicant did not agree to mediation. If the applicant agrees to attend mediation he will advise the Tribunal and respondents within 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision failing which the Registrar will schedule this case for a one day hearing.
11I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of July, 2014.
“signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair