William Mills v. Named Respondents, 2015 HRTO 304

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

William Mills

Applicant

-and-

Named Respondents

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: March 12, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 304

Indexed as: Mills v. Named Respondents

1These seven Applications are related and have been joined for the purpose of dealing with overlapping issues and issuing directions in an fair and efficient manner.

2The Applications filed against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and a named Vice-Chair of the Tribunal are dismissed as abandoned. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss these Applications on January 6, 2015 on the basis that they appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The applicant has not responded to the Notice, and the time for doing so has now passed. The Notice indicated that if the Tribunal did not receive a response, the Applications may be dismissed as abandoned.

3The remaining five Applications have not yet been served on the named respondents. Three of the named respondents are the applicants in their own Applications against the respondent. Those Applications were deferred on January 7, 2015 (2015 HRTO 20) pending the outcome of a related civil matter. Two of the named respondents are associated with the Hamilton Police Service.

4The applicant also previously filed a related application which was dismissed on the basis of timeliness on May 28, 2014 (2014 HRTO 763). The reconsideration request associated with that Decision was also dismissed (2014 HRTO 1020).

5With respect to the seven Applications which are the subject of this Interim Decision, the applicant filed one narrative describing his allegations against all of the named respondents. The narrative contains material which clearly violates the Tribunal’s Rule 1.12.1 on courteous and respectful conduct. It is replete with inappropriate language and descriptions of the named respondents. The applicant has been repeatedly advised by the Tribunal that his communications are inappropriate and yet he persists in filing material which contravenes the Rule.

6In the opening words of the narrative the applicant indicates that he has filed these Applications, in part, because he found it unfair that he could not receive legal support from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre as a respondent. He indicates that he is attempting to “come at the issue from another angle” or “flip the script and see what happens” by participating in new applications as an applicant rather than a respondent. However, these Applications relate to the same circumstances which gave raise to previous applications before this Tribunal which have been dismissed or deferred.

7The tone and content of the materials combined with the applicant’s stated reason for filing the Applications suggests that proceeding with these Applications may constitute an abuse of the Tribunal’s process. It also appears that the Applications are outside the HRTO’s jurisdiction for the following reasons:

• The Applications were filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination described in the Applications and the applicant does not appear to have cited facts that constitute “good faith” within the meaning of the HRTO’s case law [s.34(1)]. See for example Thomas v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2009 HRTO 1582 and see for example Diler v. Cambridge Memorial Hospital, 2010 HRTO 1224 for a discussion of “good faith”; and

• a review of the Applications and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness unless the unfairness is connected, in whole or in part, to one of the grounds specifically set out in Part I of the Code (e.g. race, disability, sex, etc.); see, for example, Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389).

8The applicant is directed to provide written submissions responding to the issues identified above, including abuse of process. The written submissions must be filed on or before April 13, 2015. Written submissions which contravene Rule 1.12.1 requiring courteous and respectful material will not be considered. If the applicant fails to file submissions by the deadline, the Applications will be dismissed as abandoned.

ORders

9For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders:

a. The applicant is directed to file a response to the issues set out in this Interim Decision by April 13, 2015;

b. If the applicant fails to respond by April 13, 2015, the Applications will be dismissed as abandoned;

c. Written submissions which contravene Rule 1.12.1 will not be considered;

d. Directions with respect to the service of materials on the named respondents, will be issued at a later stage, if necessary.