E.R. v. Toronto District School Board, 2016 HRTO 129

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

E.R. Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board, Nancy Lerner and Christine Patterson Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: January 28, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 129 Indexed as: E.R. v. Toronto District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

E.R., Applicant Self-represented

Toronto District School Board, Nancy Lerner and Christine Patterson, Respondents Gail Geronimo, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to contracts and/or services because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin and family status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

background

2The Application was deferred pending a civil proceeding. The applicant filed a request to reactivate the Application that was out of time. She stated that “the Superior [sic] file was withdrawn on consent.” The respondents objected to her characterization of what happened with the civil proceeding and filed an Order of the Superior Court of Ontario that dismissed the applicant’s claim in its entirety as an abuse of process given that previous orders had declared the applicant a vexatious litigant. The respondents requested that the Application be dismissed in light of the applicant’s delay in requesting that the Application be reactivation. The respondents also requested that the Application be dismissed as an abuse of process.

3On October 27, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of a Preliminary Hearing for December 11, 2015, by way of teleconference to deal with the respondents’ requests. On December 7, 2015, the applicant made an untimely request by email that the Tribunal reschedule the date because she planned to attend to “an urgent family matter” on December 11, 2015.

4On December 8, 2015, the applicant emailed, stating that she was unavailable in December. She argued that she should be granted an adjournment because the respondents had been granted an adjournment when the parties were notified about an earlier scheduled date for the preliminary hearing. On the same day, the Registrar responded to the applicant that the respondents’ request had been timely given that their request for an adjournment was within the allocated 14 day cancellation period following the Notice of the original date. In the applicant’s case, her request was well beyond the 14 day period following the Notice. The Registrar referred the applicant to the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Rescheduling and Adjournment Requests.

5On December 9, 2015, the Tribunal received an email from the applicant stating that the reason for her adjournment request was that she needed to be in court that day.

6I issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) on December 9, 2015 which cancelled the December 11, 2015 hearing date. Given the mixed messages in the applicant’s emails, and given the applicant’s misrepresentation of the civil matter which had been dismissed as an abuse of process, not withdrawn on consent as the applicant said, I directed that the applicant must file with the Tribunal, by December 15, 2015, the court docket or similar court document confirming her attendance at court on December 11, 2015. I directed that if the applicant failed to file proof of her attendance at court on December 11, 2015, then the Tribunal may consider dismissing the Application as an abuse of process. The applicant did not file proof of her attendance at court, and I issued another CAD on December 18, 2015, stating:

In the circumstances, the parties have until 5:00 p.m. on December 23, 2015 to file any submissions on whether the Application should be dismissed because of abuse of process.

7The applicant has been reminded throughout these proceedings that she must copy the respondents with all documents filed at the Tribunal. She was specifically cautioned in a Reconsideration Decision, 2013 HRTO 1971, to do so, but she has repeatedly failed to comply with the Tribunal’s rules, including on December 23, 2015. On that date, instead of filing submissions as directed above, or proof that she attended court on December 11, 2015, as directed earlier, she appears to have arranged for a letter from an organization that appears to be called “Equal Justice Canada” to be delivered to the Tribunal, but not to the respondents. The letterhead looks like it has been glued or taped to the top of the page.

8The author of the December 23, 2015 letter appears to state (her grammar is ambiguous) that she can confirm that the applicant was in court on December 11, 2015 because she spoke to the office of Antonietta Raviele, who the author understood to be the applicant’s lawyer. The author provided a telephone number for the Tribunal to reach the lawyer who the author believed would confirm that the applicant was in court December 11, 2015.

9The respondents filed submissions on January 6, 2016 urging the Tribunal to dismiss the Application given the applicant’s failure to comply with the December 9, 2015 CAD that directed her to file a court document proving that she was in court on December 11, 2015.

decision

10The applicant has not filed with the Tribunal, by December 15, 2015, or at any time, the court docket or similar court document confirming her attendance at court on December 11, 2015. I agree with the respondents that the December 23, 2015 letter does not qualify as a court document. The applicant has not filed anything that comes close to confirming her attendance at court that day.

11Her most recent correspondence, filed on January 25, 2016, is a letter from a lawyer named Arthur Brown, not Antonietta Raviele. He states that he knows nothing about these proceedings, but was contacted by a family friend of the applicant, because, he believes, he is retained to represent the applicant in Family Court. He does not confirm that the applicant was in court with him on December 11, 2015, or on any other day, and states that the applicant will not be available until the end of February. Although he is not retained by the applicant for the Tribunal’s proceedings, he requests on the applicant’s behalf that any deadline for a response from the applicant be extended until then.

12This letter does not attach any court document, and is silent with respect to whether the applicant might have been in court on December 11, 2015. Also, it does not support the implications of the letter of December 23, 2015 which indicated another lawyer was representing the applicant. I find that I cannot rely on either letter as proof that the applicant attended court December 11, 2015, nor do I find that they contain submissions from the applicant with respect to whether her Application should be dismissed as an abuse of process.

13I find that the applicant has repeatedly failed to comply with the Tribunal’s directions, including the very important direction to file a court document proving that she was unavailable to attend the preliminary hearing on December 11, 2015 because she was in court that day as she said she would be. There is nothing that has been filed by the applicant or others that satisfies me that the applicant was in court on December 11, 2015. The applicant obtained the adjournment at the last minute on the basis of her representation that she would be in court that day, and she was directed to file court documents to prove it. It appears to me that she has not complied with that direction because she was not in court on December 11, 2015.

14It would be an abuse of process to allow the applicant to obtain adjournments of Tribunal hearings on a false basis, and I am therefore dismissing the Application as an abuse of process.