Church v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2016 HRTO 1047

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peter Church Applicant

-and-

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart Date: August 9, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1047 Indexed as: Church v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

APPEARANCES

Peter Church, Applicant Self-represented

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Respondent Paula Thomas, Counsel

1This Decision is written further to the conference call with the parties held on December 7, 2015.

2By Case Assessment Direction dated December 7, 2015 (“CAD”), I confirmed that, on consent, the hearing in this matter which had been scheduled to proceed in Lindsay on December 11, 2015 was adjourned at the applicant’s request for medical reasons.

3On the conference call, the applicant indicated that he intended to call at least two witnesses, in addition to himself, to testify at the hearing. Pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules, in advance of the hearing, each party is required to provide to the opposing party and file with the Tribunal a statement setting out the evidence relevant to the issues raised in the proceeding that each witness is intended to provide. The applicant has not yet complied with this requirement.

4With regard to one of the applicant’s witnesses, who I understand to be the applicant’s sister, I confirmed in the CAD my understanding that she attended with the applicant at the Woodville sales barn on the day in question, and was present when he was told that the sales barn had been informed by the OSPCA that there was a lifetime ban against the applicant preventing him from owning livestock. I further confirmed my understanding that she also was intended to provide evidence regarding the emotional impact of this on the applicant. In the CAD, the applicant was directed to obtain from this witness a written statement setting out in her own words what she saw and heard on the occasion in question and any direct observations she may have made regarding the emotional impact on the applicant.

5With regard to the applicant’s other witness, who I understand to be a co-owner of the sales barn in Woodville, I confirmed in the CAD my understanding that he intended to provide evidence that an OSPCA officer informed the Woodville sales barn that there was a lifetime ban against the applicant from owning livestock, which is why the sales barn refused to sell livestock to the applicant. The applicant was unclear as to whether this witness himself spoke to the OSPCA officer or whether he received this information only from an identified employee of the sales barn. In the CAD, the applicant was directed to obtain from this witness a written statement in his own words setting out: who told him that there was a lifetime ban against the applicant; what specifically was said to him and by whom; whether this witness had any direct contact with anyone at the OSPCA in relation to the applicant, and if so with whom and what this person said about the applicant; and this witness’ recollection of any discussions he had with the applicant about this. If this witness was unable to provide the full name of any OSPCA officer who is alleged to have provided this information to the Woodville sales barn, then his statement was to set out the first name of this officer (if known) and/or provide a physical description of this officer.

6I also noted in the CAD that on the conference call, the applicant stated that there were computer records at the Woodville sales barn regarding the alleged ban on selling livestock to the applicant. Accordingly, in the CAD, I further directed the applicant to obtain a printed copy of any such computer records, including records of any contact or communications between the sales barn and the OSPCA regarding the applicant.

7I stated in the CAD that, if the applicant experienced any difficulty in obtaining a statement or computer records from this latter witness, he was directed to prepare and file a Request for Order (Form 10) requesting an order from this Tribunal to compel this witness to provide these materials. I noted that any such Request for Order needed to be served on this witness and the Woodville sales barn as well as on the respondent before it was filed with the Tribunal, and the applicant needed to complete a Statement of Delivery (Form 23) confirming that he has served the Request for Order on the persons specified.

8During the conference call on December 7, 2015, there also was discussion of a former employee of the Woodville sales barn. If this former employee (and not the aforementioned witness) was the only person from the Woodville sales barn who spoke directly with the OSPCA regarding the alleged lifetime ban against the applicant, then the applicant was directed to make all reasonable efforts to obtain this employee’s full name and last known contact information from the Woodville sales barn and to use his best efforts to locate this individual and obtain a written statement from her regarding who she spoke with at the OSPCA and what she was told about this alleged ban against the applicant. In the CAD, I indicated that, if the applicant experienced any difficulty obtaining the full name of this employee and/or her last known contact information, then he was to file a Request for Order seeking an order compelling the Woodville sales barn to provide this information, following the procedure described above.

9In the CAD, I further noted that during the conference call, the applicant provided a description of an OSPCA officer who he says has attended at the Woodville sales barn and who he alleges is the person who informed the aforementioned individuals about the alleged lifetime ban. I expressed my hope that, as a result of the statements to be filed by the applicant, this OSPCA officer would be identified by name. Nonetheless, based on the information and description provided and any further information provided by the applicant in accordance with this CAD, I directed the respondent to make all reasonable efforts to identify this OSPCA officer and obtain and file a written statement from her regarding any communications she may have had with anyone at the Woodville sales barn regarding the applicant and any restrictions on his ability to purchase or own livestock.

10In the CAD dated December 7, 2015, I made the following directions:

a. By no later than Friday, February 26, 2016, the applicant shall serve on the respondent and file with the Tribunal written statements from Celeste Church, Kevin Barker and (if possible) Jane together with computer records from the Woodville sales barn as described above;

b. If the applicant is unable to obtain a voluntary statement from Mr. Barker or voluntary disclosure of computer records and/or the full name and contact information for Jane, then by no later than February 26, 2016, the applicant shall serve and file a Request for Order (Form 10) seeking an order compelling Mr. Barker and/or the Woodville sales barn to provide this material and information in accordance with the procedure described above;

c. By no later than March 25, 2016, the respondent shall serve and file a statement from the OSPCA officer who is alleged to have spoken with persons at the Woodville sales barn regarding the applicant and an alleged ban on him owning livestock, setting out who she spoke with, when, and what she said. If the respondent is unable to obtain such a statement, then by March 25, 2016, the respondent shall write to the Tribunal to explain why not.

11The reason that the applicant was given such an extended deadline to complete these tasks was due to his literacy issues, and his stated need to have his sister available to read materials for him so that he could fully comply with my directions. I was told that the applicant’s sister had gone away, but would return in the latter part of January 2016. Accordingly, I wished to give the applicant sufficient time to have his sister available to make sure that he fully understood what he was supposed to do, and was able to take the steps required to comply with my directions.

12The applicant did not comply with my directions by the February 26, 2016 deadline. On March 22, 2016, counsel for the respondent wrote to the Tribunal to confirm that even by that date, nothing still had been served on her office by the applicant in compliance with my directions. Respondent counsel further confirmed that she had shared the physical description of the alleged OSPCA officer with her client, but had been advised that there are no OSPCA officers who fit this description.

13This prompted the applicant to contact the Tribunal by telephone on March 29, 2016 and speak to a staff member. The applicant stated that he believed the deadline to be the end of May 2016, and further stated that he had been quite ill in the past few months. The applicant requested an extension of time of at least two months to comply with the CAD.

14The record of contact setting out the content of this telephone conversation was shared with the respondent, and submissions were invited regarding the applicant’s request for an extension. By letter dated April 4, 2016, respondent counsel indicated that it was agreeable to the extension on the condition that if the applicant did not comply, the respondent would move to have the Application dismissed.

15By e-mail correspondence dated April 4, 2016, the Tribunal granted the applicant’s request and directed the applicant to file his response to the CAD by June 1, 2016 on the basis that the respondent would request dismissal of the Application if he failed to meet the extended deadline.

16When the applicant still had not complied with the directions set out in the CAD by the extended deadline of June 1, 2016, respondent counsel wrote again by letter dated June 2, 2016 confirming the applicant’s failure to comply and requesting dismissal of the Application. Respondent counsel followed up on the respondent’s request by e-mail correspondence dated August 4, 2016.

17To date, now over two months since the extended deadline and some five months since the original deadline, the applicant still has not complied with the directions set out in the CAD dated December 7, 2015, nor has the applicant made any effort to communicate with the Tribunal to confirm his failure to comply.

18The filing of an Application with this Tribunal commences a legal proceeding and is a serious matter. Parties need to comply with their obligations under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, as well as with any directions or orders made by this Tribunal. Particularly for an applicant, it is his responsibility to bring forward the evidence required to satisfy his legal burden of proving discrimination, and to ensure that the respondent has proper notice of such evidence in accordance with the Rules and the Tribunal’s directions or orders. Not only has the applicant failed to do so in the instant case, despite being granted an extended deadline at his request, but he has failed to make any contact with the Tribunal since his phone call on March 29, 2016, over four months ago.

19I find that the applicant has failed to comply with his obligations under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and with my directions without any reasonable justification or excuse. In these circumstances, in my view, it is appropriate to dismiss the Application as abandoned.

ORDER

20The Application is dismissed as abandoned.