Graham v. Kevin Thatcher & Associates Ltd., 2009 HRTO 1658

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Karen Graham

Applicant

-and-

Kevin Thatcher & Associates Ltd.

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: October 13, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1658

Indexed as: Graham v. Kevin Thatcher & Associates

Background

1The applicant filed an Application dated July 23, 2009, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in goods, services and facilities because of race and colour. The Application states that the date of the last event is March 22, 2007. Accordingly, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on September 8, 2009, inviting the applicant to respond with an explanation as to why the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination, and why the delay was incurred in good faith. The applicant provided submissions dated September 23, 2009, attaching a binder of documents, all of which I have read.

2The applicant’s materials helped to clarify that the respondent was her bankruptcy trustee appointed by the official receiver. She believed that because of her race and colour, the respondent did not fully inform her of her rights and responsibilities when she first met with Mr. Thatcher on March 22, 2007, to file an assignment. While the submissions clarified that the applicant continued to communicate with the respondent after March 22, 2007, they did not explain why the applicant waited more than a year after the respondent’s last alleged improper conduct to file an application against the respondent.

3The applicant’s materials indicate that she was unable to obtain an automatic discharge because she failed to attend one of two counseling sessions required by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, and the respondent filed a notice of opposition as required under that legislation. One of the letters attached to her submissions is dated October 15, 2008, and addressed “To The Judge.” It complains about the respondent being untrustworthy and wasting the applicant’s time from the period of March 2007 until June 2008. There is no reference in the materials to any contacts between the applicant and the respondent after that time.

4The applicant also provided documents related to several short visits to the hospital between 2004 and 2008, the last of which resulted in a discharge in June 2008.

Decision

5Section 34 of the Code states:

34.(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.

6The Application was not filed within one year of the date the applicant alleges the respondent last discriminated against her, and I therefore must determine whether the delay in filing this Application was incurred in good faith. The applicant has not provided any explanation for the delay in filing; therefore, I find that the applicant has not satisfied the burden of demonstrating that the delay in filing this Application was “incurred in good faith” as required under s. 34(2) of the Code.

7This Application is dismissed. The Application, the Tribunal’s correspondence to the applicant dated September 8, 2009, the applicant’s submissions and this Decision shall be served on the respondent.