Wilson v. Ives, 2015 HRTO 1461

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Donna Wilson

Applicant

-and-

Jillian Ives

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Natalia Wilson by her Litigation Guardian Donna Wilson

Applicant

-and-

Jillian Ives

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: November 2, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1461

Indexed as: Wilson v. Ives

APPEARANCES

Donna Wilson, Applicant

No one appearing

Natalia Wilson by her Litigation Guardian Donna Wilson, Applicant

No one appearing

Jillian Ives, Respondent

Naomi Calla, Counsel

Introduction

1The applicants filed Applications under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) with the Tribunal, but failed to appear for a preliminary hearing. I issued an oral decision dismissing the Applications with written reasons to follow. The following are my reasons.

BACKGROUND

2On June 17, 2014, the applicant, Donna Wilson, filed an Application against the respondent, and on January 8, 2015, the applicant, Natalia Wilson by her Litigation Guardian Donna Wilson, filed an Application against the respondent.

3On April 8, 2015, the respondent filed a Response, and on May 4, 2015, the respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing, which requested that the Applications be dismissed on a preliminary basis.

4On May 11, 2015, the applicants filed a Reply and a Response to the Request for Summary Hearing, which opposed dismissing the Applications on a preliminary basis.

5On June 1, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction, which directed that a hearing be held to determine whether the Applications should be dismissed on a preliminary basis.

6On August 19, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties, which informed them that a preliminary hearing by conference call was scheduled for October 28, 2015 from 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM. The Notice directed the parties to call a phone number and enter a conference identification number, both of which were provided in the Notice. The Notice also warned the parties that if they failed to attend the hearing, the Tribunal may take a number of steps, including dismissing the Applications as abandoned if the applicants failed to attend, or take any other action that the Tribunal considered appropriate.

7On October 26, 2015, the applicants sent the Tribunal a letter which requested that the hearing be adjourned and rescheduled.

8On October 27, 2015, the respondent sent the Tribunal an email opposing the applicants’ adjournment request.

9On October 27, 2015, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 1435, which denied the applicants’ request to adjourn the hearing.

10On October 28, 2015, the respondent called into the conference call at the time that was set out in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, but the applicants did not. The Tribunal’s standard practice where a party does not attend is to confirm in the Tribunal’s file that the Hearing Notice was sent to the missing party, and wait half an hour. If the party is still not present, the Tribunal proceeds in the party’s absence without further notice to that party. Where the applicant is not present, this will generally lead to the dismissal of the Application. See Edward v. Moda at Home, 2009 HRTO 568 at para. 2.

11I already knew from having reviewed the file and issued an Interim Decision the day before the preliminary hearing that the applicants were aware of the hearing. After waiting for half an hour, I dismissed the Applications against the respondent.

ANALYSIS

12I am satisfied that the applicants had notice of the preliminary hearing. They commenced a legal proceeding when they filed their Applications with the Tribunal, and they had a responsibility to attend the hearing and make submissions. In view of the fact that they were aware of the hearing and did not attend, they are deemed to have abandoned the Applications.

13Furthermore, 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 of Procedure. 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.

14The respondent expended significant resources responding to the Applications, and preparing for and attending the preliminary hearing. The respondent is unable to recover any costs resulting from this process, including the applicants’ non-attendance at the hearing, because this Tribunal has no authority to award costs. See Dunn v. United Transportation Union, Local 104, 2008 HRTO 405. The Tribunal has also expended significant resources processing the Applications, and scheduling and holding a hearing. In these circumstances, it would not be fair, just and expeditious to allow the Applications to continue.

ORDER

15The Applications are dismissed.