Date: 19991112
Docket: T-950-92
Ottawa, Ontario, the 12th day of November, 1999
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pelletier
BETWEEN :
UMESH PATHAK (a.k.a. MESH PATHAK)
Applicant
- and -
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION and
THE ROYAL BANK OF CANADA
Respondents
- and -
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Intervenor
REASONS FOR ORDER and ORDER
[1] This application for judicial review of the dismissal of a complaint of discriminatory treatment was launched in 1991. It is now late 1992 and the matter is still not resolved. The applicant was self-represented when the application was first launched, which contributed to a number of procedural problems. Counsel was eventually retained. A motion with respect to production of documents proceeded through the Trial Division, the Federal Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court of Canada on an unsuccessful application for leave. This resulted in the adjournment of the hearing of the application which had been scheduled for December 1995. Counsel withdrew for reasons covered by solicitor-client privilege in 1996 and has not been replaced. The applicant has taken no steps to advance his cause since that time despite correspondence from the Court requesting that he take steps to bring his application on for hearing.
[2] In April 1998, the Canadian Human Rights Commission brought an application to dismiss the applicant"s claim for delay. The judge before whom the application was placed treated it "as an ultimate chance to the applicant" and left the matter to be dealt with pursuant to the new rules dealing with status review. The matter has now come on status review. In response to the request for submissions, the applicant has written to say that when he was advised by telephone of the disposition of the application to dismiss, he inquired as to the meaning of the order and was told that the court would get in touch with him to set a hearing date. According to the applicant, he has been waiting for the Court to contact him ever since.
[3] The Canadian Human Rights Commission filed comprehensive submissions in response to the Notice of Status Review arguing that the claim should be dismissed for delay. Were it not for the applicant"s allegations that he was told to wait for the Court to contact him, I would have little difficulty granting the Commission the relief they seek. While I entertain a certain scepticism that the applicant was told that he would be contacted with a hearing date, it is likely that the applicant was told that the Court would be in touch with him in the future. To a certain extent, this explains his failure to proceed.
[4] There is little to recommend continuing this proceeding. It is a very old claim which has not been prosecuted with any sustained diligence. It seeks to set aside the dismissal of a complaint of discrimination. The decision attacked was made 8 or 9 years ago; the events giving rise to the dispute are even older. On my cursory reading of the file, the application raises no issue of general importance. The only factor in the applicant"s favour is his allegation that he did nothing in the last year because he was told that the Court would contact him with a hearing date.
[5] Had the applicant read the Rules he would have realized that proceeding under Rule 380 meant that he would have to justify his failure to prosecute his action. Whatever the appicant was told, it was his obligation to prosecute his action, a fact which Registry officers brought to his attention on several occasions.
[6] This proceeding is now so stale that justice for the defendant and intervenor rank higher than the plaintiff"s claim for the Court"s indulgence. In the end result, I am not satisfied that this action should continue and accordingly I order it struck.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the applicant"s application for judicial review of the dismissed of his complaint of discrimination in employment.
Judge