Kerrilyn Huntley v. Hydro One Networks Inc., 2015 HRTO 636

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Kerrilyn Huntley

Applicant

-and-

Hydro One Networks Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: May 14, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 636

Indexed as: Huntley v. Hydro One Networks Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Hydro One Networks Inc., Respondent

Daniel McDonald, Counsel

1On February 20, 2014, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondent subjected her to discrimination and reprisal.

2On January 8, 2015, the Tribunal deferred the Application pending the conclusion of another proceeding before this Tribunal involving the same parties (File No. 2012-11435-I).

3On March 18, 2015, the Tribunal issued its final Decision in the other proceeding. See Huntley v. Hydro One Networks Inc., 2015 HRTO 347.

4On March 25, 2015, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), which requested that the Tribunal reactivate the deferred Application because the other proceeding had concluded.

5The applicant did not file a Response to the respondent’s RFOP within the 14-day time limit in the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. See Rule 19.6.

6On April 9, 2015, the applicant’s counsel sent the Tribunal a letter, which stated that she was no longer retained by the applicant.

7On April 23, 2015, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 516, which reactivated the deferred Application. The Interim Direction also provided the following direction and warning to the applicant at para. 10:

In view of the applicant’s failure to respond to the respondent’s RFOP, and the letter from her former counsel, the Tribunal directs her to do the following. Within seven days of the date of this Interim Decision, she shall send the Tribunal’s Registrar and the respondent a letter or an email, which indicates whether or not she intends to proceed with her Application. If she fails to follow this direction, the Tribunal will likely deem the Application to be abandoned and dismiss it.

8On May 5, 2015, the respondent sent the Tribunal a letter, which requested that the Application be dismissed because it had received no communication from the applicant regarding her intention to proceed with her Application.

9To date, the applicant has not complied with the Tribunal’s direction, or otherwise contacted the Tribunal.

10In view of the above facts, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

11The 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.

12Moreover, the respondent has expended resources responding to the Application, and is unable to recover any costs resulting from this process 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 a portion of its limited resources processing the Application. In these circumstances, it would not be fair, just and expeditious to provide a further direction and warning to the applicant.

13The Application is dismissed.