Jamie Knight v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General and Jonelle Van Delft, 2017 HRTO 1222

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jamie Knight

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General and Jonelle Van Delft

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: September 19, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1222 Indexed as: Knight v. Ontario (Attorney General)

APPEARANCES

Jamie Knight, Applicant

No one appearing

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General and Jonelle Van Delft, Respondents

Andrew Cox, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), but failed to appear for a preliminary hearing. I issued an oral decision dismissing her Application with written reasons to follow. The following are my reasons.

2On November 5, 2015, the applicant filed an Application, which alleged that the respondents discriminated against her with respect to services, employment, housing, and contracts. In her Application, she stated that the best way to send information to her was by email.

3On January 28, 2016, the respondents filed a Response to the Application, which denied the allegation of discrimination, and requested that the Application be dismissed on a preliminary basis.

4On July 14, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), which directed that a preliminary hearing be held to decide whether the Application should be dismissed.

5Following the issuance of the CAD, a lengthy process took place to schedule a preliminary hearing.

6On July 12, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Rescheduled Preliminary Hearing (the “Hearing Notice”) to the parties by email and regular mail, which informed them that the hearing was rescheduled for September 18, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. The Hearing Notice directed the parties to call a phone number and enter a conference identification number, both of which were provided in the Hearing Notice. The Hearing Notice also warned the parties that if they failed to attend the hearing, the Tribunal may take a number of steps, including dismissing the Application if the applicant failed to attend.

7On July 15, 2017, the applicant sent the Tribunal an email in response to the Hearing Notice that was issued to her by email. She requested that the Tribunal find a way to get a lawyer to represent her at the hearing.

8On July 17, 2017, the Tribunal sent the applicant an email in response, which informed her that as a quasi-judicial, adjudicative agency, the Tribunal cannot provide legal advice to parties that come before it. The Tribunal advised her to obtain independent legal advice, and provided her with the contact details of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, which provides free legal advice and may provide representation to persons making applications to the Tribunal.

9On September 18, 2017, the respondents called into the preliminary hearing at the time that was set out in the Hearing Notice, but the applicant did not. The Tribunal’s standard practice where a party does not attend is to confirm in the Tribunal’s file that the Hearing Notice was sent to the missing party, and wait half an hour. If the party is still not present, the Tribunal proceeds in the party’s absence without further notice to that party. Where the applicant is not present, this will generally lead to the dismissal of the application. See Edward v. Moda at Home, 2009 HRTO 568 at para. 2.

10I confirmed in the file that the applicant was aware of the preliminary hearing, and after waiting for half an hour, I dismissed the Application against the respondents because of her failure to appear for the hearing.

11The applicant commenced a legal proceeding when she filed her Application with the Tribunal, and she had a responsibility to attend the preliminary hearing and make submissions.

12Furthermore, the 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 of Procedure. 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.

13The respondents expended significant resources responding to the Application, and preparing for and attending the preliminary hearing. The respondents are unable to recover any costs resulting from this process, including the applicant’s non-attendance at the hearing, because this Tribunal has no authority to award costs. See Dunn v. United Transportation Union, Local 104, 2008 HRTO 405. The Tribunal has also expended significant resources processing the Application, and scheduling and holding a preliminary hearing. In these circumstances, it would not be fair, just and expeditious to allow the Application to continue.

14The Application is dismissed.