Major v. V Group Call Centre, 2014 HRTO 1782

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jeremy Major Applicant

-and-

V Group Call Centre Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: December 12, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1782 Indexed as: Major v. V Group Call Centre

1On February 12, 2013, the applicant filed an Application with this Tribunal under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondent had discriminated against him with respect to employment.

2On March 28, 2013, the respondents filed a Response, which denied the allegation of discrimination.

3On October 4, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for April 14 and 15, 2014. The Notice also informed them that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments. The Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice, and requests for adjournments thereafter will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness, or representative.

4On April 4, 2014, the applicant sent the Tribunal an email, which requested that the hearing be adjourned. He stated that he was unable to attend the hearing at that time because of certain medical conditions. He did not submit a doctor’s note in support of his request.

5On April 10, 2014, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2014 HRTO 514, which granted the applicant’s adjournment request, but with the following conditions.

Within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant shall file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondent a doctor’s note, which answers the following questions:

1. Does Mr. Major have medical conditions, which affect his ability to participate in a hearing?

2. What medical conditions affect Mr. Major’s ability to participate in a hearing?

3. How do Mr. Major’s medical conditions affect his ability to participate in a hearing?

4. Are there accommodations that the Tribunal can provide, which would allow Mr. Major to participate in a hearing?

5. Will Mr. Major be able to attend a hearing in the foreseeable future?

6The Interim Decision also warned the applicant that if he did not comply with this direction, the Tribunal may dismiss the Application.

7On April 17, 2014, the applicant filed a doctor’s note dated February 4, 2013, which was not only more than a year old, but did not answer the above questions.

8Therefore, on July 29, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction, which stated:

Within two weeks of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, the applicant shall file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondent a current doctor’s note which answers the above questions. If he fails to do so, the Tribunal may dismiss the Application.

9The applicant did not comply with this direction, and, to date, has not otherwise contacted the Tribunal.

10The 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 applicant has failed to comply with the Tribunal’s direction despite having been warned on two occasions that his Application may be dismissed if he failed to do so. He has also failed to communicate with the Tribunal since April 17, 2014. Given these circumstances, my view is that the Application should be dismissed.

12The Application is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 12^th day of December, 2014.

“Signed by”

__________________________________

Ken Bhattacharjee

Vice-chair