Crooked in Canada

Crooked in Canada has managed to find out what went down with Kimberlee Ouwroulis age discrimination complaint against the New Locomotion strip club and its owner, John Sit.

I tell you what, it didn’t go down very well for her and get this, Kimberlee didn’t even bother to show up to the hearing. Like what a stupid broad, and doesn’t that say a lot about the kind of person she is, despite her brain injury.

Based on the decision handed down this past September, I would have to say that CG had Kimberlee Ouwroulis pegged from the get go. She was all talk and no walk, and just looking to cash in by telling her story to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Case closed, and it really, really sucks to be Kimberlee Ouwroulis.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kimberlee Ann Ouwroulis       Applicant

-and-

New Locomotion and John Sit   Respondents

______________________________________________________________________

DECISION

______________________________________________________________________

Adjudicator:            Michael Gottheil

Date:                   September 18, 2009

File Number:            2008-00378-I

Citation:               2008 HRTO 1498

Indexed as:            Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion

______________________________________________________________________

[1]               This Decision is further to the Tribunal’s Interim Decisions, 2008 HRTO 237 (CanLII), 2008 HRTO 237 (CanLII), 2009 HRTO 335 (CanLII), 2009 HRTO 335 (CanLII) and 2009 HRTO 1282 (CanLII), 2009 HRTO 1282 (CanLII) and a Case Assessment Direction dated July 7, 2009.

[2]               In 2009 HRTO 1282 (CanLII), 2009 HRTO 1282 the Tribunal determined that it would hear the respondents’ Request to dismiss the Application.  The respondents argued that the applicant had consistently failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules, and the various directions set out in its Interim Decisions and the Case Assessment Direction.  The Tribunal set a timeline for the parties’ submissions on the Request, and also set a teleconference hearing for September 18, 2009, commencing at 9:30 am.

[3]               The applicant did not attend the teleconference hearing.  The Tribunal waited for 20 minutes, and then, in accordance with its Rules, proceeded in the applicant’s absence.  There is no question the applicant had received Notice of the teleconference hearing as she had filed submissions as directed in 2009 HRTO 1282 (CanLII), 2009 HRTO 1282.

[4]               The respondents argued that the Tribunal should dismiss the Application.  It argued that the applicant’s failure to attend the teleconference hearing is the latest in a pattern of behaviour, as set out in the Tribunal’s previous decisions, indicating that she will not respect and comply with the requirements of the Rules, and the directions of the Tribunal.

[5]               In the earlier Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 335 (CanLII), 2009 HRTO 335 the Tribunal stated:

[4]       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.

[5]               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.

[6]               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.

[7]               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.

[6]               In view of the applicant’s continued failure to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules and the Tribunal’s directions and her failure to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing despite having received notice, the Application is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of September, 2009.

“Signed by”

__________________________________

Michael Gottheil

Chair