Rutledge v. The Travel Corporation (Canada), 2014 HRTO 642

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Paul Rutledge

Applicant

-and-

The Travel Corporation (Canada)

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: May 6, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 642

Indexed as: Rutledge v. The Travel Corporation (Canada)

APPEARANCES

Paul Rutledge, Applicant

No one appearing

The Travel Corporation (Canada), Respondent

Thomas Stefanik, Counsel

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), but failed to appear for the hearing of the merits of his Application. I issued an oral decision dismissing his Application with written reasons to follow. The following are my reasons.

BACKGROUND

2On December 20, 2012, the applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal, and on March 27, 2013, the respondent filed a Response.

3On June 26, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction, which directed that a summary hearing be held to decide whether the Application should be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it has no reasonable prospect of success. A summary hearing took place on September 24, 2013. Both parties attended the summary hearing.

4On September 27, 2013, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 1634, which decided that the Application had a reasonable prospect of success and would proceed to either a mediation or a merits hearing. In view of the fact that the applicant was a self-represented layperson, the Tribunal also provided directions to him on how to prepare for the merits hearing.

5On October 28, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing, which informed the parties that the merits hearing was scheduled for May 5 and 6, 2014 at 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor, Toronto, commencing at 9:30 AM. The Notice was sent to the applicant at the address that he specified in his Application, and was not returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable. The Notice warned the parties that if they failed to attend the hearing, the Tribunal may take a number of steps, including dismissing the Application if the applicant failed to attend.

6The Notice also 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. The respondent complied with Rules 16 and 17, but the applicant did not.

7On May 5, 2014, the respondent and its witnesses attended the merits hearing at the place and time that was set out in the Notice of Hearing, but the applicant did not appear. I commenced the hearing at 10:00 AM after confirming with Tribunal staff that the applicant had not called in to explain his absence, and then dismissed the Application.

ANALYSIS

8Based on the above facts, I am satisfied that the applicant was aware of the date, location and time of the merits hearing, but decided not to attend. The applicant commenced a legal proceeding when he filed his Application with the Tribunal. It is the applicant's responsibility to attend the hearing and provide evidence in support of the allegations raised in the Application. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal is unable to proceed with the Application and there is no onus or responsibility on the respondent to provide evidence in response to allegations.

9Furthermore, 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 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.

10The respondent expended significant resources responding to the Application, preparing for and attending the summary hearing, and preparing for and attending the merits hearing. The respondent is unable to recover any costs resulting from this process, including the applicant's non-attendance at the merits hearing, because this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award costs. See Dunn v. United Transportation Union, Local 104, 2008 HRTO 405. The Tribunal has also expended significant resources processing the Application, scheduling and holding the summary hearing, and scheduling and holding the merits hearing. In these circumstances, it would not be fair, just and expeditious to reschedule the merits hearing.

ORDER

11The Application is dismissed.