HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Roy Ross

Applicant

-and-

National Steel Car Limited

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: September 11, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1346

Indexed as: Ross v. National Steel Car Limited

1On April 23, 2013, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and on June 20, 2013, the respondent filed a Response.

2On December 18, 2013, the parties attended a mediation at the Tribunal, which did not result in a settlement of the case.

3On March 14, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing is scheduled for September 15, 2014, at a hearing room in Hamilton.

4The Notice set out the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure with respect to disclosure of documents and witnesses. Rule 16 requires each party to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a list and copy of all documents that it intends to rely on no later than 45 days prior to the first scheduled day of hearing. Rule 17 requires each party to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a witness list and brief statement summarizing the expected evidence of each witness no later than 45 days prior to the first scheduled day of hearing.

5In accordance with the Notice and Rules 16 and 17, the parties were required to disclose to each other and file with the Tribunal all the documents that they intend to rely on, a witness list and witness statements by no later than August 1, 2014. The respondent complied with Rules 16 and 17, but the applicant did not.

6In the Tribunal’s experience, a large number of parties who fail to comply with their pre-hearing obligations 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. This duty is not only in relation to the parties, but also 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.

7Accordingly, on September 2, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) to the parties, which stated the following at para. 8:

By no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 9, 2014, the applicant shall (1) file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondent the materials required under Rules 16 and 17, or (2) confirm in writing to the Tribunal and the respondent that the Application and Reply reflect the evidence that will be given by him, and that he will not be relying on any further documents or calling any further witnesses. If he fails to follow this direction, the Tribunal will likely dismiss the Application as abandoned.

8The deadline has passed and the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s CAD, or otherwise contacted the Tribunal.

9In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application, and the Application is dismissed. The hearing scheduled for September 15, 2014 is cancelled.