Dokis v. Lambton (County), 2009 HRTO 359

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Leo Dokis

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the County of Lambton, Allan Vansteekiste

and Terrence Cribbin

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: March 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 359

Indexed as: Dokis v. Lambton (County)

1This is an Application filed on November 27, 2008 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision addresses the failure by one of the personal respondents to file a Response to the Application, and preliminary issues raised by the other respondents.

2The Application concerns events that occurred in 2003, and alleges that the applicant was discriminated against in his employment as a security tenant, on the basis of race.

3The applicant asserts that while employed as a security tenant in a housing complex operated by the Corporation of the County of Lambton (the County), he was assaulted by another tenant on the basis of his race. He alleges that the County then terminated his employment on the basis of the assault, thus condoning and supporting the actions of the tenant. The dismissal letter is dated April 16, 2003 and states that the applicant is relieved of his duties as the Security Tenant, although permitted to remain as a tenant.

4The individual respondent Allan Vansteekiste is the Property Manager for the County who investigated the altercation between the applicant and the co-tenant.

5Several legal proceedings ensued from the altercation. Among them was a claim made by the applicant to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the Board) for loss of earnings arising out of the altercation. The claim was denied by a Claims Adjudicator and then by an Appeals Resolution Officer with the Board, subsequent to which the applicant appealed to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (the WSIAT). The WSIAT issued a decision on the appeal on November 19, 2008, in which it dismissed the applicant’s claim.

6In responding to the Application, the County and Allan Vansteekiste request that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that it does not disclose a prima facie allegation of discrimination against them, that the subject-matter has already been adjudicated by the WSIAT and also that the Application is out of time as it is based on events in 2003.

7The individual respondent, Terrence Cribbin is the co-tenant who is alleged to have assaulted the applicant. The Application as well as the Response of the County and Mr. Vansteekiste have been sent by regular mail to Mr. Cribbin at the address provided by the applicant. Neither has been returned, nor has Mr. Cribbin filed a Response as directed in the Notice of Application. The Tribunal will not require Mr. Cribbin to file a Response at this time, as it has decided to deal with certain preliminary issues initially.

8On its review of the material before it, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to address at this stage the issue of whether it should accept this Application despite the apparent delay in filing it, and the issue of whether it should dismiss the Application on the basis of the WSIAT decision.

9Section 45.1 of the Code provides:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

10The issue raised by the respondents is whether the Application should be dismissed under section 45.1 because the WSIAT appropriately dealt with the issues in its decision.

11Section 34(1) of the Code requires that an application be brought within one year of the incident to which it relates or, if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series. Section 34(2) allows the Tribunal to accept an application made beyond this time limit 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.

12Given that the incidents underlying this Application occurred in 2003, there is an issue as to whether the Tribunal should accept the Application despite the passage of time, and related to this, whether the delay was incurred in good faith and any substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

13The Registrar will schedule a teleconference with the parties to hear submissions on the two issues identified above.

14If 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.

15I am not seized.