HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Cynthia Robinson
Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Romona Gananathan
Indexed as: Robinson v. Toronto (City)
APPEARANCES
Cynthia Robinson, Applicant
No one appearing
City of Toronto, Respondent
Darragh Meagher, Counsel
Introduction
1The applicant filed an Application on July 21, 2017, under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging that the respondent contravened the terms of the settlement reached between the parties.
2On August 25, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties confirming that hearing of the Application would take place on November 24, 2017 from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Tribunal’s hearing centre at 655 Bay St, 14th Floor, Toronto, Ontario.
3At the end of the day on November 22, 2017 the applicant made a request to withdraw her Application. She also indicated that she did not intend to appear at the scheduled hearing.
4As a result, the Tribunal requested submissions from the respondent by 4:00 p.m. on November 23, 2017 and the respondent complied with this request. The respondent took the position that the applicant’s communication to the Tribunal should be considered a notice of abandonment and that the Tribunal should dismiss the application on these grounds. The respondent submits that the opportunity for an individual to make a claim of discrimination to the Tribunal (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. In the alternative, the respondent argued that the hearing should be converted to a summary hearing, and the Application be dismissed on the basis of delay.
5Given the lateness of the applicant’s request, the Tribunal informed the parties that the hearing would proceed by teleconference at the previously scheduled time and that they were not required to attend in person. The Tribunal informed the applicant that the Application may be dismissed as abandoned if the applicant did not attend the teleconference hearing.
6The applicant was not in attendance at the commencement of the scheduled hearing. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. before proceeding.
7During this time, respondent’s counsel attempted to contact the applicant at the workplace, and was informed that the applicant was absent from work, but had been able to communicate with her supervisors about the absence. Counsel also confirmed he had not received any other communication from the applicant about this application or attendance at the hearing since the applicant’s last email communication to the Tribunal on November 22, 2017.
8At 10:00 a.m. the applicant was not in attendance nor had the applicant communicated with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend.
FINDINGS
9I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing. The notice was communicated to the parties by electronic mail (“email”) and the notice was not returned from the applicant’s address as undeliverable. The email address is the same address used by the applicant in her communication with the Tribunal on November 22, 2017.
10A hearing before this Tribunal is a serious legal proceeding which involves obligations on all parties. A basic obligation assumed by the parties is to attend a scheduled hearing. One of the reasons for this is that the other party will have expended considerable resources and time and to prepare and attend the hearing on the scheduled hearing day. The Tribunal will also have expended resources to schedule the hearing and assign an adjudicator. These resources are wasted when parties fail to assume their obligation to respect the seriousness and significance of the process and attend the hearing. See for example, Ouwroulis v New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335 at paras 4-7. The Tribunal also incurs further consequences including delay in other similarly serious and significant applications being heard by the Tribunal.
11In the case at the hand, the applicant was advised that her request to withdraw her application would be considered at the outset of the hearing. However, the applicant has failed to participate in this hearing and has failed to provide a valid reason as to why she was incapable of doing so. Although the hearing was scheduled for a full day and required in person attendance, the Tribunal altered the mode of participation to a teleconference hearing, which would allow the parties easier access to attend remotely from any suitable location. Despite these accommodations, the applicant failed to participate or provide any further explanation about her inability to participate in the hearing.
ORDER
12In the circumstances, the Application was dismissed at the hearing.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of December, 2017.
“Signed by”
Romona Gananathan
Vice-chair