Smith v. Vale Canada Limited, 2015 HRTO 1154

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dean Smith

Applicant

-and-

Vale Canada Limited

Respondent

-and-

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied

Industrial and Service Workers International Union (United Steelworkers),

Local 6500

Intervenor

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: August 31, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1154

Indexed as: Smith v. Vale Canada Limited

1On March 27, 2015, the applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application contained brief allegations of discrimination which lacked particulars.

2On May 6, 2015, the Tribunal delivered the Application to the respondent, and directed it to file a Response by June 10, 2015.

3On June 9, 2015, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), which requested that the Tribunal order the applicant to provide full particulars of his allegations of discrimination before it be required to file its Response to the Application.

4As per the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the applicant was required to file a Response to the respondent’s RFOP by no later than June 23, 2015, but he failed to do so.

5On July 7, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction, which directed the applicant to file a Response to the respondent’s RFOP by no later than July 24, 2015, and warned him that if he failed to comply with this direction, his Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

6The applicant failed to file a Response to the respondent’s RFOP by July 24, 2015.

7On July 31, 2015, the applicant left two voicemails with the Tribunal, which requested an extension of time to file a Response to the respondent’s RFOP. On the same day, the Tribunal sent the applicant a letter by regular mail and email, which directed him, as per the Tribunal’s Rules, to make his request for an extension of time in writing, to provide a copy of his request to the respondent, and to specify the amount of time he required. To facilitate the process, the Tribunal attached a Response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings form to the letter.

8To date, the applicant has not made an extension request in writing, has not filed a Response to the respondent’s RFOP, and has not otherwise contacted the Tribunal.

9The Tribunal has a duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly and expeditiously. See section 40 of the Code and Rule A3.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules. 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.

10In my view, the Application should be dismissed because of the applicant’s failure to follow the Tribunal’s Rules and directions. The Application contains brief allegations of discrimination which lack particulars. The respondent filed an RFOP, which requested that the Tribunal order the applicant to provide full particulars of his allegations of discrimination before it be required to file its Response to the Application. The applicant failed to file a Response to the respondent’s RFOP by the required deadline, failed to follow the Tribunal’s direction to file a Response by a new deadline, and then failed to follow the Tribunal’s direction about making a request for an extension of time to file a Response. For whatever reason, the applicant is not following the Tribunal’s Rules and directions, and there is no indication that he will do so.

11In the circumstances, it would not be fair, just and expeditious to allow the Application to continue.

12The Application is dismissed.