HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ritchy Dube

Applicant

-and-

John Howard Society of Canada, John Rimore,

Mike Szabo and Graham Stewart

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: February 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 209

Indexed as: Dube v. John Howard Society

[1] The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) on October 27, 2008. The Application alleges that the respondents discriminated against the applicant in the early part of 2006 in the context of applying for employment.

[2] In the Response, the respondents ask the Tribunal to dismiss the Application because of the delay in filing it. The respondents also ask the Tribunal to dismiss the Application because their contact with the Applicant was not “with respect to employment” within the meaning of the Code: therefore, they argue that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the Application. The applicant filed a Reply which did not address the delay or the jurisdictional issue.

[3] Section 34 of the Code reads as follows:

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.

[4] It is apparent that there is a significant issue regarding the Tribunal’s power to hear this matter as a result of the delay. In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not require the respondents to file a Request for Order During Proceedings under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure.

[5] The Registrar will schedule a hearing to hear submissions on whether the Application is barred as a result of s. 34 of the Code.

[6] If any party wishes to rely on case law or other supporting material at the hearing, they are directed to deliver this material to each other, and to the Tribunal, by no later than two weeks before the date scheduled.

[7] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 27^th^ day of February, 2009.

“Signed by”

Mary Truemner

Vice-chair