HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Nicholas Sangineto
Applicant
-and-
BridgCo Foods Inc.
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price
Indexed as: Sangineto v. BridgCo Foods Inc.
1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging that the respondent employer infringed the applicant’s rights under the Code.
2For the following reasons, the Application is dismissed as abandoned. Alternatively, the Application is dismissed as an abuse of process.
3On May 8, 2014, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Hearing advising them that the Application would be heard on October 24, 2014, and that, by no later than September 9, 2014, they were required to provide to one another and the Tribunal with the documents they intended to rely upon at the hearing, a list of their witnesses, and a brief statement summarizing what their witnesses would say when they testified.
4The respondent complied with its disclosure requirements. However, the applicant did not provide his documents or witness statements by the September 9, 2014 deadline.
5Accordingly, on September 19, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing the applicant to deliver the required materials to the Tribunal and the respondent by no later than September 26, 2014, including a witness statement for the applicant himself. The September 19, 2014 CAD also directed the applicant to confirm by September 26, 2014 that he intended to proceed with the Application, and warned the applicant that failure to do so could result in the Application being dismissed as abandoned.
6The applicant did not communicate with the Tribunal by Friday, September 26, 2014.
7On Tuesday, September 30, 2014, the respondent emailed the Tribunal asking that the Application to be dismissed based on the applicant’s lack of response. Although the applicant had not responded to the September 19, 2014 CAD, he responded to the respondent’s email, on September 30, 2014, by asking which document was missing from his “side”.
8In light of the applicant’s September 30, 2014 email, I was not prepared to dismiss the Application as abandoned. Instead, in a further CAD issued on September 30, 2014, I repeated that what was required from the applicant were the documents he intended to rely upon at the hearing, a list of his witnesses, and statements summarizing what his witnesses would say when they testified, including a witness statement for the applicant himself. I extended the applicant’s deadline for providing his documents to October 3, 2014.
9In response to the September 30, 2014 CAD, the applicant emailed the Tribunal indicating that he was “very upset” with the Tribunal’s process and asserting that he had already provided the Tribunal and the respondent with the required documents and that he had the emails to prove it. However, the Tribunal had no record of having received such materials from the applicant. Moreover, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal on September 30, 2014, confirming that the applicant had not provided it with any of the required materials.
10The Registrar’s office sent the applicant two emails to the Tribunal in response: (1) an October 1, 2014 email inviting the applicant to telephone the Case Processing Officer responsible for his file with any questions he might have and directing the applicant to the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, as well as its online Applicant’s Guide to Preparing for a Hearing; and (2) an October 2, 2014 email repeating what materials the applicant had been directed to provide by October 3, 2014, and requesting that the applicant confirm whether he would be attending the October 24, 2014 hearing. The applicant did not respond to those emails, nor did he contact the Case Processing Officer responsible for his file. The applicant did not provide the materials he had been directed to provide by the extended deadline of October 3, 2014, nor did he confirm that he would be attending the October 24, 2014 hearing.
11Accordingly, on October 7, 2014, I issued a further CAD directing that a brief conference call would be convened on October 10, 2014 to clarify two things:
the statement in the applicant’s September 30, 2014 email that he had already provided the Tribunal and the respondent with his pre-hearing documents (i.e. the documents he intends to rely upon at hearing of the Application, if any; his list of witnesses and his witness statements); and
whether the applicant was going to attend the October 24, 2014 hearing of his Application in Toronto.
12The applicant emailed the Tribunal confirming that he would attend the October 10, 2014 conference call.
13However, on October 9, 2014, the evening before the conference call was to take place, the applicant emailed the Tribunal to say that he would not attend the October 10, 2014 conference call because he had just started a new job. In the circumstances, the Tribunal cancelled the October 10, 2014 conference call and rescheduled it to October 14, 2014. However, in doing so, the Registrar directed the applicant to provide, by no later than October 10, 2014, a detailed explanation in writing for his inability to attend the very brief conference call that had been set up for October 10, 2014 to address his ongoing failure to comply with his pre-hearing obligations and his failure to confirm that he intended to attend the October 24 hearing.
14The applicant did not comply with the Tribunal’s direction that he provide a written explanation for his inability to attend the October 10, 2014 conference call.
15The Tribunal convened a conference call on October 14, 2014 for the purpose of addressing the applicant’s statement that he had provided his documents and witness statements, even though it appeared he had not done so; and for the purpose of confirming whether the applicant intended to attend the October 24 hearing of his Application.
16During the October 14, 2014 conference call, the applicant was very disrespectful to me, as well as the respondent’s counsel. Specifically, at the outset of the conference call, I asked the applicant to explain why he could not attend the October 10, 2014 conference call, as scheduled, and why he had failed to explain his inability to attend in writing, as directed by the Registrar’s office. In response, the applicant raised his voice and told me that he was “tired of it”, that he was “not an idiot”, and that he had worked in “IT” for 20 years and knew how to send an email. The applicant maintained that he had replied to the Tribunal’s October 10, 2014 email, as directed, providing a detailed explanation as to why he had been unable to attend the October 10, 2014 conference call. However, no such email was received by the Tribunal.
17The applicant was also very disrespectful to the respondent’s counsel during the October 14, 2014 conference call, interrupting her submissions and yelling at her. I warned the applicant at the time that such conduct was not tolerable and directed him not to interrupt the respondent’s submissions or to yell at counsel. The applicant complied with that direction at the time. However, after the conference call, on the evening of October 14, 2014, the applicant sent an abusive and extremely inappropriate email insulting the respondent, its counsel and Tribunal staff.
18In response to the applicant’s conduct, in an October 17, 2014 Interim Decision, 2014 HRTO 1554, at para. 38, the Tribunal warned the applicant against such behaviour:
This is a warning to the applicant that discourteous and abusive communications of the sort contained in his October 14, 2014 email will not be tolerated. In the event that the applicant persists in this sort of communication, and/or if the applicant continues to fail to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and/or its directions, the Tribunal may dismiss his Application as an abuse of process, pursuant to s.23 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 22.
19The first day of hearing was on Friday, October 24, 2014. On that date, the applicant testified, as did one other witness. Since the hearing was not concluded on October 24, a continuation date needed to be scheduled.
20On October 28, 2014, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the Application be dismissed on the basis that it was already clear based on the evidence heard on October 24, 2014 that the applicant could not succeed in his claim that the respondent infringed his rights under the Code.
21The applicant responded to the respondent’s request, also on October 28, 2014, by sending an email in which he insulted respondent counsel, calling him a “little person” who has “no culture and no value”, unprofessional and “the worse (sic) lawyer” the applicant has ever seen. The applicant also made a completely baseless accusation that respondent counsel had tampered with an audio file the applicant had previously provided him of a meeting the applicant had had with the owner of the corporate respondent.
22Following the applicant’s October 28, 2014 email, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal asking that it “take the necessary steps to end these unfortunate experiences.” The respondent pointed out that the Tribunal had warned the applicant in its October 17, 2014 Interim Decision that discourteous and abusive communications of the sort contained in his October 14, 2014 email would not be tolerated and could lead to the dismissal of the Application, pursuant to the Tribunal’s power to take steps to prevent abuse of its processes.
23The applicant’s October 28, 2014 email was very troubling insofar as it was precisely the sort of behaviour which the Tribunal had warned the applicant would not be tolerated, just days before, in its October 14, 2014 Interim Decision. That said, in an Interim Decision dated February 9, 2015, I declined to dismiss the Application as an abuse of process at that time. I wrote that I was not convinced that the applicant’s conduct had gotten to that point that it would be “manifestly unfair” for the hearing to continue or that proceeding with the Application would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, [2003] 3 SCR 77; Taylor Made Advertising Ltd. v. Atlific Inc., 2012 ONCA 459.
24Instead, in order to ensure against the applicant continuing to make insulting and disrespectful comments about the respondent, its counsel or the Tribunal, I directed the applicant to confirm in writing that he would abide by the Tribunal’s expectations of appropriate language and conduct during the remainder of the proceeding. The applicant was directed to provide that confirmation within two weeks of the February 9, 2015 Interim Decision (i.e. by February 23, 2015). I advised the applicant that his Application would be set down for a second day of hearing once the Tribunal had received the above-noted confirmation. I also warned the applicant that if he did not comply with the Tribunal’s direction within two weeks of the Interim Decision (i.e. by February 23, 2015), his Application might be dismissed as abandoned.
25The Tribunal’s February 9, 2015 decision was sent to the applicant by email. On the same date that he received the decision, February 9, 2015, the applicant emailed the Tribunal back asking whether he could reply to the Tribunal’s CAD by email.
26The Tribunal responded on February 10, 2015 that the applicant could provide his written confirmation by mail, email or fax, but that it had to be submitted by no later than February 23, 2015, as per the Tribunal’s February 9, 2015 Interim Decision.
27Notwithstanding the email exchange between the applicant and the Tribunal on February 9, 2015, the Tribunal had received nothing from the applicant by the February 23, 2015 deadline. Accordingly, the Tribunal emailed the applicant on February 23, 2015, stating that it had not yet received the applicant’s written confirmation that he would abide by the Tribunal’s expectations of appropriate language and conduct during the remainder of the proceeding. The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide the written confirmation by no later than that day, February 23, 2015. The Tribunal reiterated that, as stated in the February 9, 2015 decision, if the Tribunal did not receive the written confirmation the applicant had been directed to provide, then the Tribunal might conclude that he had abandoned his Application and dismiss it accordingly.
28The applicant responded to this email on February 23, 2015, by claiming that he had sent the required written confirmation to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal had not received the written confirmation from the applicant. Moreover, it was not the first time the applicant had claimed to have sent things to the Tribunal that were not received by the Tribunal. As noted above, on September 30, 2014, and again on October 14, 2014, the applicant claimed to have emailed the Tribunal materials that the Tribunal never received.
29On February 24, 2015, the Tribunal responded to the applicant that his written confirmation had not been received, and directed the applicant to resend the written confirmation as soon as possible, as required by the Tribunal’s February 9, 2015 decision.
30On February 25, 2015, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal asking that the Application be dismissed based on the applicant’s failure to comply with the Tribunal’s February 9, 2015 direction that the applicant confirm in writing that he would abide by the Tribunal’s expectations of appropriate language and conduct for the remainder of the proceeding. The respondent submits that, given the applicant’s past inappropriate conduct and failure to provide the required written confirmation, it is concerned that the applicant will continue to engage in inappropriate behaviour if the Application continues.
31It is now more than two months since the applicant was directed to resend the required written confirmation to the Tribunal and there has been no communication from the applicant whatsoever.
32The applicant was warned a number of times that failure to provide written confirmation that he would comply with the Tribunal’s expectations regarding respectful behaviour could result in the Application being dismissed as abandoned.
33In the circumstances, it appears to me that the applicant has abandoned the Application. It is dismissed accordingly on this basis.
34In the alternative, I find that the Application should be dismissed at this point as an abuse of process. The applicant has repeatedly failed to comply with the Tribunal’s directions, which has had the effect, if not the intention, of thwarting the Tribunal’s ability to fulfill its statutory mandate to deal with the Application and to ensure that it is dealt with fairly and expeditiously. Most recently, the applicant has failed to comply with what, to my mind, was a very reasonable requirement in the circumstances that the applicant confirm that he would abide by the Tribunal’s expectations regarding appropriate behaviour and language for the remainder of the proceeding – a requirement imposed in response to the applicant’s continued use of inappropriate and insulting language. As a general rule, I believe that the Tribunal should give some leeway to self-represented parties such as the applicant and I think it is fair to say that I have done so in this case. However, as the Tribunal stated in Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335:
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.
35As stated in Ouwroulis, at a certain point, failure to comply with the Tribunal’s directions may lead to the Application being dismissed. In all of the circumstances, I feel that this point has been reached and it would constitute an abuse of the Tribunal’s processes to continue with the Application. The Application is dismissed accordingly.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of May, 2015.
“Signed by”
Sheri Price
Vice-chair