Aldon Sawyers v. Noble Corporation, 2014 HRTO 828

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Aldon Sawyers

Applicant

-and-

Noble Corporation, Sam Blanda and Gary Jamieson

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: June 5, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 828

Indexed as: Sawyers v. Noble Corporation

APPEARANCES

Aldon Sawyers, Applicant

Ayoob Khan, Representative

Noble Corporation, Sam Blanda and Gary Jamieson, Respondents

David Turner, 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”). On the second day of the hearing of the merits of the Application, I made an oral decision, with written reasons to follow, granting the applicant’s request to withdraw his Application, and the respondents’ request to dismiss the Application. The following are my reasons.

BACKGROUND

2On June 20, 2013, the applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal, and on July 31, 2013, the respondents filed a Response.

3On October 22, 2013, the parties attended a mediation at the Tribunal, which did not result in a settlement of the case.

4On November 19, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing, which informed the parties that the hearing of the merits of the Application was scheduled for June 2, 3 and 4, 2014.

5Prior to the hearing, both parties complied with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure with respect to disclosure of documents and witnesses.

6On June 2, 2014, the hearing commenced as scheduled at the Tribunal. The applicant began presenting his evidence first, and was being cross-examined by the respondents’ counsel when the hearing day ended. The cross-examination was scheduled to continue the following day.

7On June 3, 2014, the applicant’s representative appeared, but the applicant did not. The applicant’s representative stated that he had received instructions from the applicant to request a withdrawal of his Application. The respondents consented to the applicant’s withdrawal request on the condition that the Application also be dismissed. The applicant’s representative consented to the Application being withdrawn and dismissed.

8I then made an oral decision which granted the applicant’s request on consent to withdraw his Application, and the respondents’ request on consent that the Application also be dismissed.

ANALYSIS

9The 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. 5-6:

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.

10The respondents have expended significant resources responding to the Application, preparing for and attending the mediation, and preparing for and attending the hearing. The respondents are unable to recover any costs resulting from this process 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 mediation, and scheduling and holding the hearing. In these circumstances, it would not be fair, just and expeditious to allow the Application to be withdrawn without also dismissing it.

ORDER

11The Application is withdrawn and dismissed.