HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Arden Dottin
Applicant
-and-
Value Village (Savers-USA Washington DC)
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Genèvievé Debané
Indexed as: Dottin v. Value Village
APPEARANCES
Arden Dottin, Applicant
Self-represented
Value Village (Savers USA-Washington DC) and Shane Parnell, Respondents
James Fu, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services.
2The hearing on the merits of this matter was scheduled for August 11 and 12, 2014. On August 11, 2014, I dismissed the Application as abandoned. These are my reasons.
3The matter was scheduled to begin at 9:30 on Monday, August 11, 2014. The applicant attended the hearing at 9:50. I advised the applicant that it was important for him to attend the hearing at the scheduled time the next day and that had he been ten minutes later the Application could have been dismissed as abandoned.
4I explained the process to the parties and Mr. Dottin had no questions. I reminded the parties that it was important to take notes during the hearing because the hearing was not being tape recorded. When the applicant asked why the hearing was not being tape recorded I advised that there had been no request to tape record by the parties. The Tribunal’s Practice on Recording Hearings explains that the HRTO does not normally record proceedings but may record one at its own discretion.
5At that point the applicant made a request to tape record the hearing. The only reason that he gave was that this was a “free and democratic society” and that he wanted the hearing recorded.
6The respondents’ counsel opposed the request to tape record on the basis that it had not been brought on a timely basis, that it would delay the hearing and that the applicant had not provided a good reason to tape record the hearing.
7I orally ruled that I would not allow the applicant’s request to tape record the hearing because it would delay the proceeding and the applicant did not provide a reason to tape record the hearing.
8At that point the applicant became very upset with my ruling. He asked whether there was duty counsel available to which I responded no. The applicant then indicated that he would be leaving the hearing room. I advised the applicant that if he left the hearing that I would dismiss his Application as abandoned. During this interaction the applicant was constantly interrupting me and not listening to my directions. I told the applicant that he should consider the significance of his leaving and I adjourned the matter for ten minutes.
9When we returned to the hearing room I advised the applicant that I would ask him questions about his Application. He responded that he would not answer my questions unless the hearing was tape recorded. I advised the applicant that this process was dependent on the applicant respecting me and my decisions. The applicant still refused to answer my questions saying “no tape recording no conversation”. Based on the applicant’s responses I advised the parties that I would ask staff to determine if it was possible to tape record the proceeding because it would be impossible to proceed with the hearing.
10When we returned to the hearing room I advised the parties that staff indicated that we could tape record the proceeding. The applicant told me that he did not want me to be the one turning the tape recording on and off. He got up and walked towards the door. I advised the applicant that if he left the hearing room that I would dismiss the Application as abandoned. As he was leaving the applicant stated “Why are you agreeing to tape record now” and that this matter would be dealt with at a “higher level”.
11After the applicant left the hearing room, I dismissed the Application as abandoned. I also find that the applicant’s overall conduct during the hearing was an abuse of process.
12The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of August, 2014.
“signed by”
Genèvievé Debané
Vice-chair