Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Henry Roos
Applicant
-and-
Firestone Textiles Ltd.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David A. Wright
Indexed as: Roos v. Firestone Textiles
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) on November 17, 2008. Although it is unclear from the applicant’s narrative, the Application appears to relate to a series of events that commenced with the applicant suffering an injury on October 20, 1989 while working for the respondent employer. Since then, the applicant has filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, various grievances through his Union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 175, and a duty of fair representation application at the Ontario Labour Relations Board. There were also, it appears, ongoing discussions involving the Workers’ Compensation Board.
2It appears that applicant last worked actively for the employer in the early 1990s and that his employment was formally considered severed by 1996. The Union filed a grievance in 1999 seeking reinstatement of the applicant, which was not referred to arbitration, and the applicant pursued this matter at the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which made a decision in 2001. On April 16, 2002, Arbitrator Victor Solomatenko dismissed a grievance seeking severance pay for the applicant.
3The applicant states that the date of the last event leading to his Application was July 29, 2004. On the section of the Tribunal’s application form that asks why he is applying more than a year after the last event he states: “Working on the case, getting all information together. Also spent several weeks in hospital. Please accept my apology for the delay.”
4Section 34 of the Code reads as follows:
- (1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,
(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or
(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.
(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.
5It is apparent that there is a significant issue regarding the Tribunal’s power to hear this matter as a result of the delay. Accordingly, the Registrar shall deliver the Application to the respondent and the Union, but the Tribunal will not require the respondent to file a Response at this time. The Registrar is directed to schedule a teleconference with the parties to hear submissions on whether the Application is barred as a result of s. 34 of the Code. The applicant should be prepared to explain why he believes that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.
6I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 31^st^ day of December, 2008.
“Signed By”
David A. Wright
Vice-Chair