Tesseris v. My Care Pharmacy, 2017 HRTO 1387

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Tesseris

Applicant

-and-

My Care Pharmacy

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: October 19, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1387

Indexed as: Tesseris v. My Care Pharmacy

1On January 20, 2017, 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 had discriminated against her and subjected her to reprisal.

2On March 23, 2017, the respondent filed a Response, which denied the allegations of discrimination and reprisal, and requested that the Application be dismissed on a preliminary basis

3On April 11, 2017, the applicant filed a Reply, which alleged that the respondent has subjected her to further reprisals, and opposed dismissing her Application on a preliminary basis.

4A preliminary hearing by conference call was originally scheduled for July 6, 2017. The applicant requested that the hearing be adjourned and rescheduled, and her request was granted. The hearing was rescheduled for October 20, 2017.

5On October 2, 2017, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to adjourn and reschedule the preliminary hearing again. She stated that the reasons for her request are her “poor health condition” and “daily struggles”, and she in the process of retaining a legal representative.

6On October 3, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), which directed the applicant to file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondent a doctor’s note with written answers to specific questions to substantiate her request for an adjournment of the preliminary hearing scheduled for October 20, 2017. The deadline for filing the doctor’s note was October 10, 2017.

7The applicant did not comply with the Tribunal’s direction, or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal.

8Therefore, on October 18, 2017, the Tribunal issued a further CAD, which, at paras. 4-5, provided the following information, direction, and warning to the applicant:

The Tribunal has a duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly and expeditiously. See section 40 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, 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.

In the circumstances, the Tribunal directs the applicant to file the required doctor’s note by no later than 12:00 Noon tomorrow (October 19, 2017). If she fails to comply with this direction, her Application will be dismissed.

9The applicant did not comply with the Tribunal’s direction, or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal.

10In view of the applicant’s repeated failure to comply with the Tribunal’s directions, the Application is dismissed, and the preliminary hearing scheduled for October 20, 2017 is cancelled.