Mitchell v. P.J. Anglesey Services Ltd o/a TAS Page Communication, 2015 HRTO 1423

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carol Ann Mitchell

Applicant

-and-

P.J. Anglesey Services Ltd. o/a TAS Page Communications

and Virginia Comrie

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Colin Johnston

Date: October 23, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1423

Indexed as: Mitchell v. P.J. Anglesey Services Ltd o/a TAS Page Communication

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondent discriminated against her with respect to employment because of disability, contrary to Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated May 4, 2015, the Tribunal ordered a summary hearing by teleconference to address the respondents’ request that the Application be dismissed under section 45.1. The respondents submit that the substance of the Application has been appropriately dealt with, by way of a settlement reached in an earlier Employment Standards complaint.

3On June 24, 2015, a second CAD was issued by the Tribunal directing the parties to produce documents in advance of the summary hearing. More specifically, the applicant was directed to produce copies of her Employment Standards claim to the respondents, as the Tribunal indicated that such documents were arguably relevant to the proceeding. The Tribunal warned the parties that there would be “serious consequences” for failure to comply with the Direction.

4In an email dated June 26, 2015, the applicant advised the Tribunal that she would the share the information in her Employment Standards file once she received the information from the Ministry of Labour.

5The respondents state that to date the applicant has not produced any material in accordance with the Tribunal’s Direction. There has been no communication from the applicant explaining why she has not complied with the Direction. The applicant is found to be in non-compliance with that Direction.

6A summary hearing was originally scheduled for August 17, 2015, but was rescheduled at the request of the respondent. The summary hearing was rescheduled to September 15, 2015, based on dates canvassed between the parties. Notice of the summary hearing was sent out to the parties on July 6, 2015 confirming the time, date, and call-in information for the conference call.

7The Notice was delivered to the applicant at the last address provided by the applicant to the Tribunal and was not returned as undeliverable.

8I am satisfied that the applicant was given proper notice of the summary hearing.

9The applicant did not call in to participate in the conference call, which was scheduled to commence at 10 a.m. on September 15, 2015. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:30 a.m. before proceeding.

10By 10:30 a.m. the applicant had not joined the conference call. The applicant has not been in communication with the Tribunal to explain her failure to participate in the summary hearing.

11A proceeding before the Tribunal is a serious legal matter, which imposes obligations on all parties. In this case, those obligations included the production of documents in advance of the summary hearing, and participation in the summary hearing itself.

12There is little doubt that the respondents have expended considerable time and resources to prepare for, and participate in the summary hearing process. The Tribunal itself has also expended resources to schedule the hearing. Sadly, these resources are wasted when one party chooses not to participate in the proceeding.

13In Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335 the Tribunal stated at paras. 4-7:

4Human 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.

5When 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.

6Likewise, 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.

7The 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.

14In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed on the basis that the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application. The applicant’s failure to comply with the Tribunal’s Direction and her failure to participate in the summary hearing proceeding supports the finding that the applicant has indeed abandoned her Application.

ORDER

15For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed.