HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Tiara Rycroft
Applicant
-and-
Bob Minhas
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
Indexed as: Rycroft v. Minhas
APPEARANCES
Tiara Rycroft, Applicant
No one appearing
Bob Minhas, Respondent
Self-represented
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 July 31, 2014, the applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal, and on September 30, 2014, the respondent filed a Response. Both parties indicated that they were agreeable to attending a mediation.
3On February 9, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Mediation, which informed the parties that the mediation was scheduled for April 24, 2015.
4On April 10, 2015, the applicant sent the Tribunal an email, which stated that she was no longer agreeable to mediation, and preferred to go straight to a hearing. On the same day, the Tribunal notified the parties that the mediation was cancelled.
5On June 16, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing, which informed the parties that the hearing of the merits of the Application was scheduled for November 6, 2015 at 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor, Toronto, commencing at 9:30 a.m. The Notice also set out the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 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 complied with these Rules, but the applicant did not.
6On November 6, 2015, the respondent attended the hearing at the place and time that was set out in the Notice of Hearing, but the applicant did not appear. I commenced the hearing at 10:00 a.m. after confirming with Tribunal staff that the applicant had not contacted the Tribunal to explain her absence, and then dismissed the Application.
ANALYSIS
7In view of the fact that the Notice of Hearing was sent to the mailing address that the applicant specified in her Application, and it was not returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable, and the respondent delivered his disclosure materials to the applicant prior to the hearing, I am satisfied that she was aware of the date, location and time of the hearing of her Application.
8The 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 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 the Tribunal has no authority to award costs. See Dunn v. United Transportation Union, Local 104, 2008 HRTO 405. The Tribunal has also expended resources processing the Application, scheduling and cancelling the mediation, and scheduling and holding the hearing. In these circumstances, it would not be fair, just and expeditious to allow the Application to continue.
ORDER
11The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of December, 2015.
“Signed by”
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair