Complaint Dismissed for Non-Compliance with Tribunal Procedures

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne Citation: 2026 CHRT 31 Date: March 26, 2026 File No. : HR-DP-3110-25 Between: [NAME] Complainant - and - Canadian Human Rights Commission Commission - and - [NAME] Respondent Decision Member: [NAME] \o "1-3" \h \z \u I. OVERVIEW AND

DECISION PAGEREF _Toc225339467 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003300330039003400360037000000 II. ISSUE PAGEREF _Toc225339468 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003300330039003400360038000000 III. ANALYSIS PAGEREF _Toc225339469 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003300330039003400360039000000 A. Legal principles applying to this decision PAGEREF _Toc225339470 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003300330039003400370030000000 B. Wholesale disregard for time limits and the Rules of Procedure PAGEREF _Toc225339471 \h 3 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003300330039003400370031000000 C. This case has remained static for an unreasonable length of time and the Complainant has no intent to bring it to a conclusion PAGEREF _Toc225339472 \h 7 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003300330039003400370032000000 IV.

ORDER PAGEREF _Toc225339473 \h 8 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003300330039003400370033000000 I. OVERVIEW AND

DECISION [ 1 ] [NAME] (the “Complainant”) is a M é tis woman with disabilities. [NAME] filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) against the [NAME] (the [NAME] or the “Respondent”). In June 2025, the Commission referred [NAME]’s complaint to the Tribunal for inquiry. [ 2 ] The Tribunal set deadlines for the parties to file their SOPs, and extended the deadlines for doing so, but [NAME] has not filed her SOP. [ 3 ] The Tribunal directed [NAME] to explain the delay in filing her SOP. Despite having several opportunities to provide this information and to file her SOP, [NAME] has refused to do so . [ 4 ] In March 2026, [NAME] confirmed that she will not take direction from the Tribunal or go any further with her complaint. [ 5 ] For the reasons below, [NAME]’s complaint is dismissed.

II. ISSUE [ 6 ] This decision is about whether [NAME]’s complaint should be dismissed due to her failure to file an SOP and to comply with the Tribunal’s directions.

III. ANALYSIS A. Legal principles applying to this decision [ 7 ] The Tribunal must conduct its proceedings as informally and expeditiously as the requirements of natural justice and the rules of procedure allow (see section 48.9(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 (the CHRA)). The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Rules of Procedure , SOR/2021-137 (the “Rules of Procedure”) are to be applied to secure the informal, expeditious, and fair determination of every inquiry on its merits (see Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure). If a party does not comply with the Rules of Procedure or with an order or time limit made under them, the Tribunal may dismiss the complaint or make any order to achieve the objectives of Rule 5 (see Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure). [ 8 ] The opportunity for an individual to make a claim of discrimination to a publicly funded human rights tribunal is highly significant. It comes with the obligation to follow the Tribunal’s process and to comply with its rulings and directions. The requirement in the CHRA that the Tribunal conduct informal proceedings is meant to enhance access for the parties, but it does not mean that parties may take a casual attitude to the proceedings. Although some circumstances may justify a party’s non-compliance with a Tribunal ruling or direction, a complainant who does not respond to a Tribunal ruling or direction, without a valid reason, risks having their complaint dismissed (see [NAME] v. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada , 2025 CHRT 52 at para 11 [ [NAME] ]; and Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure). [ 9 ] In applying Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure and deciding on the consequences of a party’s failure to comply with the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal must consider: (a) whether there has been wholesale disregard for the Tribunal’s time limits and the Rules of Procedure; (b) whether the case has remained static for an unreasonable length of time; and (c) whether the complainant appears to have no intent to bring the case to a conclusion. ([NAME] at para 14, citing [NAME] v. Canada , 2002 FCT 456 at paras 16 – 18 [ [NAME] ]; and [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2023 CHRT 3 at para 44 [ [NAME] ].) [ 10 ] A complainant has the responsibility to advance their file and to comply with deadlines (see [NAME] v. [COMPANY] ., 2012 CHRT 4 at para 83 [ [NAME] ]; and [NAME] v. [COMPANY] , 2024 CHRT 84 at para 11). The other parties to a complaint are also entitled to have complaints addressed in a timely way (see [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2021 CHRT 21 at para 39). A complainant’s failure to participate in the process can result in a complaint being dismissed as abandoned (see [NAME] v. Correctional Service Canada , 2024 CHRT 97). B. Wholesale disregard for time limits and the Rules of Procedure [ 11 ] The correspondence between the Tribunal and the parties provides context for this decision. [ 12 ] On July 14, 2025, approximately four weeks after the Commission’s referral of [NAME]’s complaint to the Tribunal for inquiry, the Tribunal’s Registry Officer wrote to the parties and informed them of the next steps. The Registry Officer is the point of contact between the parties and the Tribunal Member assigned to a complaint. [ 13 ] On July 15, 2025, [NAME] contacted the Registry. She expressed frustration about delays. [NAME] also informed the Registry and the [NAME] that she wanted to try mediation of her complaint. On July 18, 2025, [NAME], counsel for the [NAME], informed the Registry that she would not be available for two weeks and requested an extension of time to seek instructions. [ 14 ] The Tribunal allowed the extension of time, but [NAME] objected. She stated that her case had been ongoing for five years, and that the Commission and the Tribunal have been biased against her. [ 15 ] On July 23, 2025, the Registry Officer informed [NAME] that the Tribunal is separate and independent from the Commission, that the Commission’s referral of her complaint to the Tribunal started a new process, and that the Tribunal did not have information about events that took place during the Commission’s consideration of her complaint. [ 16 ] On August 11, 2025, the [NAME] agreed to try mediation. The Tribunal’s Registry followed up with the parties. [NAME] spoke with the Registry Officer, a Registry supervisor, and a Tribunal administrator, expressing concern about delays, and about statements that Registry Officers made to her. She asked that the Registry Officer and the Registry’s supervisor be removed from discussing the case with her. [ 17 ] On August 19, 2025, [NAME] informed the Tribunal that the [NAME] had decided not to participate in mediation until the parties exchanged SOPs. As a result, the Tribunal began its case management process, in which the parties file their SOPs and attend case management conference calls (CMCCs) to move forward and prepare for the hearing of the complaint. [ 18 ] On August 22, 2025, a Registry Officer informed the parties that the Tribunal Member assigned to this case will hold a CMCC to explain the next steps. However, [NAME] said that she would not communicate with the Registry Officers who she spoke with because of their conduct, and that she will not proceed until the Tribunal addresses her complaints about them. [ 19 ] [NAME] made clear that she felt mistreated by the Tribunal’s administrative employees. However, a party’s service complaint does not permit them to refuse to participate in the Tribunal’s legal proceedings. The Tribunal Member assigned to an inquiry controls the conduct of that inquiry according to the Rules of Procedure, including holding case management conferences (see Rules 3(1) and 3(2) of the Rules of Procedure). [ 20 ] To move this case forward, the Registry sent my directions to the parties about the next steps. The first direction, dated August 27, 2025, set deadlines for SOPs to be filed. It required [NAME] to file her SOP by October 3, 2025. However, [NAME]’s response was that she would not move forward until the Tribunal addressed her service complaints. On September 19, 2025, [NAME] also informed a Tribunal administrator that she had “blocked [her] and all Canadian Human Rights Tribunal staff.” [NAME] did not file her SOP by the October 3, 2025, deadline. [ 21 ] Accordingly, on October 7, 2025, the Registry sent my further direction to the parties. It confirmed that the Tribunal had not received [NAME]’s SOP. It noted [NAME]’s statement that she had blocked emails from Tribunal staff members and informed her that the Tribunal did not have her home address and could only communicate with her by email. The direction explained that I am the decision-maker in this case, and that it is my responsibility to make decisions fairly and impartially. It informed [NAME] that, if she would like to meet to discuss the next steps in this case, she must inform the Registry and it would organize a CMCC, but [NAME] did not reply. [ 22 ] On October 15, 2025, the Registry sent my third direction to the parties. It informed [NAME] that her complaint cannot move forward if she does not file her SOP and communicate with the Tribunal. It explained that the Rules of Procedure require complainants to comply with time limits and that, if they do not comply, the Tribunal can order them to remedy their non-compliance, dismiss their complaint, or make any order so that the case can proceed (see Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure). It required [NAME] to provide submissions explaining the delay in filing an SOP, and to explain why the Tribunal should not dismiss her case for failing to file an SOP. The direction noted that [NAME] could request more time to respond and request a CMCC to discuss her case. [ 23 ] In response, [NAME] sent her telephone number to the Registry and left a voicemail message stating that she was trying to contact me but had not received a return phone call. The Registry replied that it would organize a CMCC if [NAME] was requesting one, and that, “ [in] fairness to all parties, the presiding member on a case does not hold phone calls with only one party in a human rights complaint.” [ 24 ] [NAME] replied that she had not asked for a meeting with me. She also stated that she could not open the documents from the Commission about her complaint. She expressed frustration with the Tribunal’s process, stating that she was “done with all [the Tribunal’s] hoops, departments, processes, protocols, and this maze to maneuver to exercise [her] Canadian Human Rights.” [ 25 ] On October 27, 2025, the Commission sent a further copy of its documents to [NAME], and she confirmed receipt. On October 30, 2025, the Registry sent my direction extending the deadlines for SOPs to be filed. It extended the deadline for [NAME]’s SOP to November 21, 2025, with the opportunity to request more time. It again referred to the opportunity for a CMCC if the parties required assistance or wanted to discuss the case with me. However, [NAME] did not file her SOP by the new deadline or request an extension of time. [ 26 ] On November 25, 2025, the Registry sent my further direction for [NAME] to provide submissions by December 9, 2025 (with the option to request more time), to explain the delay in filing her SOP and to explain why the Tribunal should not dismiss her case based on the failure to comply with the deadline. However, on December 2, 2025, [NAME] responded that “[this] case is not going any further until someone calls me from the Tribunal to discuss these matters, and constant ignored emails.” [ 27 ] On December 3, 2025, the Registry sent my further direction, which noted that the Tribunal has replied to all emails. The direction reminded [NAME] of the opportunity to participate in a CMCC, and informed the parties that the November 25, 2025, direction to provide submissions remained in effect. [NAME] sent further emails in response, but she did not respond to my direction to provide written submissions. [ 28 ] On January 15, 2026, the Tribunal sent my further direction to the parties. It noted that [NAME] had not provided the submissions as directed. It referred to recent Tribunal decisions in which the Tribunal dismissed a human rights complaint because a complainant did not proceed with their complaint or did not explain their failure to comply with the Tribunal’s process. It directed the parties to provide written submissions about whether the Tribunal should dismiss [NAME]’s complaint. [ 29 ] [NAME] responded by asking for a CMCC.

Accordingly, I suspended the direction for submissions. A CMCC was scheduled for February 10, 2026. [NAME] attended the meeting, said that she would not move forward with her complaint until the Tribunal’s Registry resolves her staff complaint, and then left the meeting. [ 30 ] On February 19, 2026, the Registry sent my further direction reinstating the requirement for the parties to provide submissions. The direction noted that [NAME]’s service complaint about administrative staff members did not permit her to refuse to participate in this proceeding and confirmed that the case was moving forward. It again stated that [NAME] was required to comply with directions and orders that the Tribunal makes under the Rules of Procedure, and that if she did not do so, the Rules of Procedure permit the Tribunal to dismiss her human rights complaint, or to make any other order to move forward to a hearing about her complaint. It required the parties to provide written submissions by February 27, 2026, about whether the Tribunal should dismiss [NAME]’s complaint. [ 31 ] In her response emails, [NAME] said: “Not happening,” and “Go ahead, cancel my case, I am going to take legal action against the Tribunal.” [ 32 ] [NAME] also asked for an extension of time. On February 23, 2026, the Registry sent [NAME] my direction requiring her to explain her request for an extension and to provide a date by which she would file submissions. [NAME] did not provide this information in her reply.

Accordingly, on February 26, 2026, the Registry informed the parties that [NAME]’s request for an extension of time to provide her submissions was not granted. [ 33 ] [NAME] did not provide written submissions. [ 34 ] Counsel for the [NAME] provided submissions, described below, that [NAME]’s complaint should be dismissed. [ 35 ] On March 3, 2026, [NAME] sent an email stating that she will not take any directions from the Tribunal and will not be “going any further” with her complaint. [ 36 ] The [NAME] submits that these facts establish the three elements for dismissing a complaint, as set out in [NAME] . It argues that [NAME] has shown a repeated and wholesale disregard for the Tribunal’s process, time limits, and Rules of Procedure. [ 37 ] I agree. [NAME] did not comply with the Tribunal’s direction to file an SOP by the deadlines made under the Rules of Procedure, despite being informed that the Rules of Procedure require her to file an SOP and that her complaint cannot move forward without it, and despite an extension of time and the opportunity to request a further extension to file it. [NAME] also did not comply with the Tribunal’s many directions to explain her failure to file an SOP. Her recent communication satisfies me that she will not comply with Tribunal directions. I find that she has shown a wholesale disregard for the Tribunal’s time limits, directions, and Rules of Procedure. C. This case has remained static for an unreasonable length of time and the Complainant has no intent to bring it to a conclusion [ 38 ] The delays in this case have occurred in the first step of the Tribunal’s process. Almost six months have elapsed since the original deadline for [NAME] to file her SOP, and four months have passed since the extended SOP filing deadline. [ 39 ] [NAME] expressed frustration about delays. I acknowledge that several years passed before the Commission referred this complaint to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has no control over the Commission’s process, and it began its process to move this complaint forward within weeks of the Commission’s referral. [NAME]’s case is at a standstill because she has not moved her case forward. Her service complaints are not valid reasons for failing to file her SOP and refusing to comply with directions. [ 40 ] The Tribunal must ensure that its process is accessible to all parties, particularly for parties who are not represented or who face challenges in navigating the legal process (see [NAME] at para 37). However, I also agree with the [NAME]’s submission that a complainant is responsible for advancing their complaint and for complying with deadlines (see [NAME] at para 83), and I am satisfied that [NAME] has not done so. [ 41 ] [NAME] has not provided any information about personal circumstances or challenges that may be preventing her from moving her case forward. She has not indicated that she will remedy the delay. Clearly to the contrary, [NAME] has stated that she will not be “going any further” with her complaint. [ 42 ] A party’s failure to address non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions does not promote respect for the Tribunal’s process, for other parties, for the public interest, or for the use of public resources to address human rights complaints (see [NAME] at paras 38 and 40). [ 43 ] The facts satisfy me that this case has remained static for an unreasonable length of time, and that [NAME] has no intent to move her complaint forward or to bring it to a conclusion. In the circumstances, I find that there is no other course of action except to dismiss [NAME]’s complaint.

Accordingly, under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure, I dismiss this complaint.

IV.

ORDER [ 44 ] This complaint is dismissed. Signed by [NAME] Tribunal Member Ottawa, Ontario March 26, 2026 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Parties of Record File No. : HR-DP-3110-25 Style of Cause: [NAME] v. [NAME] Decision of the Tribunal Dated: March 26, 2026 Parties of Record: [NAME] , Self-represented Complainant [NAME] , for the Respondent