Strang v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2017 HRTO 1686

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Margaret Strang

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sophie Martel

Date: December 20, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1686

Indexed as: Strang v. Ontario (Attorney General)

APPEARANCES

Margaret Strang, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General, Respondent

Matthew Chung, Student-at-law

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on April 27, 2017. She alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services, facilities and membership in a vocational association because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, creed, family status, marital status, age and reprisal or threat of reprisal.

BACKGROUND

2To the extent that the Application can be understood, it alleges that a number of Crown Attorneys obstructed the applicant’s access to justice, racially slurred her and assaulted her in the court room. The applicant also alleges that she was denied French language services during various court proceedings. The applicant has sworn a number of private informations, which the Crown stayed prior to proceeding to pre-enquete hearings. The respondent characterizes the Application as a collateral attack on the Crown’s prosecutorial discretion.

3After the applicant filed her Application on April 27, 2017, the Tribunal sent her a Notice of Incomplete Application on June 28, 2017. The applicant had not completed a Form 1-C: Application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Area of Discrimination: Goods, Services and Facilities. She also did not complete question 12 of the Application, which requires an applicant to advise if there has been a court action based on the same facts as the Application and to provide any related documents. The Tribunal asked the applicant to complete her Application on or before July 16, 2017.

4The applicant did not provide the requested missing information. On July 20, 2017, she instead provided a letter with additional allegations pertaining to French language services.

5On August 25, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction directing that a summary hearing be held by conference call to hear arguments on whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

6On September 13, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties confirming that a summary hearing by teleconference would take place on November 30, 2017 commencing at 1:30 p.m. The Notice was delivered to the applicant by mail at the last address she provided to the Tribunal and was not returned as undeliverable.

7On November 29, 2017, the eve of the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment of the summary hearing in order to obtain legal advice from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre. Vice-chair Jo-Anne Pickel denied the adjournment. The Tribunal only grants last minute adjournments in extraordinary circumstances and does not grant adjournment requests for the purposes of consulting counsel. See the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments. The Tribunal therefore advised the parties that the hearing would proceed as scheduled on November 30, 2017.

8The applicant joined the conference call at the designated time but refused to cooperate in the conference call. She refused to hear my introduction of the proceedings and the parties. The applicant instead argued in a confrontational tone that her French language rights were not being met, that she had requested an adjournment, that she had filed materials and that the summary hearing could not proceed. The applicant would not let anyone else speak, interrupted when I attempted to bring order to the call and eventually hung up.

9The summary hearing proceeded in the applicant’s absence. The respondent made submissions as to why the Application should be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success.

10It has not been necessary for me to consider the respondent’s submissions on whether the Application should be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success. I am dismissing the Application on the basis that the applicant has abandoned the Application by failing to cooperate in the Tribunal’s processes.

ANALYSIS

11The applicant has refused to cooperate in the Tribunal’s processes in respect of this Application.

12She first failed to complete her Application. While the Tribunal does not necessarily dismiss an application on the basis of technical deficiencies, in this case, the question as to whether the applicant had commenced a court action based on the same facts as the Application was particularly relevant. The respondent’s summary hearing submissions include an interim order from the Superior Court of Justice that the respondent (the applicant in this Application) may not commence a motion, application, trial or private information pending a hearing seeking to declare her a vexatious litigant. The interim order of the Superior Court of Justice lists the same parties of record as the parties in this Application.

13The applicant joined the summary hearing conference call at the designated time but refused to cooperate. It was apparent from her remarks that her failure to cooperate was not solely due to the denied adjournment. For example, she complained that her French language rights were not being recognized when it was clear that I am bilingual and tried to converse with the applicant in French. The applicant, however, refused to listen to anything said, carried on with multiple other objections and then hung up. It was evident that the applicant had no intention of cooperating and participating in the call and instead sought to disrupt the summary hearing.

14As stated at paragraph 13 of Eisenberg v. Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2012 ONSC 4802, the Tribunal is within its rights to dismiss an application when an applicant is not prepared to cooperate with the Tribunal in its processes.

15The applicant has shown by her behaviour that she is not prepared to cooperate with the Tribunal in its processes. I therefore dismiss the Application.

ORDER

16The Application is dismissed.