Patricia White v. Amherstburg Police Service, 2015 HRTO 147

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Patricia White

Applicant

-and-

Amherstburg Police Service

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: January 30, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 147

Indexed as: White v. Amherstburg Police Service

APPEARANCES

Patricia White, Applicant No one appearing

Amherstburg Police Service, Respondent Edward J. Posliff, 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”), but failed to appear for the hearing of her Application. I issued an oral decision dismissing her Application with written reasons to follow. The following are my reasons.

BACKGROUND

2On March 11, 2013, the applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal, and on June 28, 2013, the respondent filed a Response.

3On April 15, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing (the “Notice”), which informed the parties that the hearing was scheduled for November 20-21, 2014 at Windsor City Hall, 350 City Hall Square West commencing at 10:00 AM. The Notice was sent by regular mail to the address that the applicant specified in her Application, and was not returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable. The Notice warned the parties that if they failed to attend the hearing, the Tribunal may take a number of steps, including dismissing the Application if the applicant failed to attend.

4The Notice also set out the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”) with respect to disclosure of documents and witnesses. Rule 16 requires each party to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a list and copy of all documents that it intends to rely on no later than 45 days prior to the first scheduled day of hearing. Rule 17 requires each party to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a witness list and brief statement summarizing the expected evidence of each witness no later than 45 days prior to the first scheduled day of hearing. The respondent partially complied with the disclosure requirements, but the applicant did not comply at all.

5On November 17, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), which directed the parties to fully comply with the Tribunal’s Rules on disclosure of documents and witnesses. The CAD was emailed to the address that the applicant specified in her Application, and did not bounce back to the Tribunal as undeliverable. The respondent then fully complied with the disclosure requirements, but the applicant did not comply or otherwise contact the Tribunal.

6On November 19, 2014, the Tribunal issued a further CAD, which provided directions to the parties with respect to managing the hearing. The CAD was emailed to the address that the applicant specified in her Application, and did not bounce back to the Tribunal as undeliverable.

7On November 20, 2014, the respondent and its witnesses attended the hearing at the place and time that was set out in the Notice, but the applicant did not appear. I commenced the hearing at 11:00 AM after confirming with Tribunal staff that the applicant had not called in to explain her absence, and then dismissed the Application.

ANALYSIS

8Based on the above facts, I am satisfied that the applicant was aware of the date, location and time of the hearing, but decided not to attend. The applicant commenced a legal proceeding when she filed her Application with the Tribunal. It is the applicant’s responsibility to attend the hearing and provide evidence in support of the allegations raised in the Application. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal is unable to proceed with the Application and there is no onus or responsibility on the respondent to provide evidence in response to allegations.

9Furthermore, 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. 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.

10The respondent expended significant resources responding to the Application, and preparing for and attending the hearing. The respondent is unable to recover any costs resulting from this process, including the applicant’s non-attendance at the hearing, 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 the hearing, renting a hearing room, and flying a Vice-chair from Toronto to Windsor to preside over the hearing. In these circumstances, it would not be fair, just and expeditious to reschedule the hearing.

ORDER

11The Application is dismissed.