Hure v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2015 HRTO 1313

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Amina Hure

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, operating as the Ontario Provincial Police

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: October 5, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1313

Indexed as: Hure v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

1The applicant filed an Application in which she alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of her race contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H. 19 (the "Code"). The hearing for the Application was scheduled to take place on October 26-27, 2015.

2On May 5, 2015, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing which set September 11, 2015 as the date by which each party had to comply with their pre-hearing disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure ("Rules").

3The respondent made the required disclosure by this deadline. The applicant did not. On September 14, 2015, I sent the parties a Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") in which I noted that the applicant had failed to make the disclosure required under the rules. I directed the applicant to file the required materials immediately and at the latest by September 21, 2015. I also directed the applicant to file a Response to the Notice of Request for Summary hearing filed by the respondent. The applicant did not file the required materials by September 21, 2015.

4On September 21, 2015, the applicant's son who is acting as her representative requested an extension of time to file the required documents on the basis that he had started teaching again in September and was busy with his students. Despite the fact that this would not normally be a valid reason to request an extension, the Tribunal provided the applicant with an extension until September 28, 2015. On September 24, 2015, the applicant asked for a further extension due to the upcoming religious weekend and because he was extremely busy with his teaching. In light of the religious holiday, I granted the applicant an extension until October 1, 2015 to file the materials that should have been filed on September 11, 2015. I notified the applicant's representative that if he did not filed the required materials by October 1, 2015, the Application would be dismissed as abandoned.

5The applicant's representative did not file the required materials by October 1, 2015, nor did he request an extension or communicate with the Tribunal in any way in response to my last CAD.

6In filing her Application, the applicant commenced a legal proceeding. In Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335, the Tribunal explained the corresponding obligations that come with filing an Application with the Tribunal:

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.

ORDER

7In the above circumstances, the Application is dismissed as abandoned for failure to comply with the Tribunal's directions.