Boz v. Ontario Public Guardian and Trustee, 2009 HRTO 648

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nelson Boz

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Public Guardian and Trustee

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: May 15, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 648

Indexed as: Boz v. Ontario (Public Guardian and Trustee)

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 February 24, 2009, alleging that the respondent discriminated against him in respect of goods, services and facilities on the basis of disability, receipt of public assistance, and/or association with a person identified by disability and/or receipt of public assistance and that the respondent engaged in reprisals contrary to the Code.

2Section 34 of the Code provides that a person may file an Application alleging that his or her rights under the Code have been infringed within one year of the incident (or last incident) to which the application relates. It also provides that persons may apply to the Tribunal more than one year after the incident(s) to which the Application relates in certain circumstances:

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.

3The Application indicates that the date of the last event upon which the Application is based was July 17, 2003. No reason is given in the Application for the more than five year delay in filing the Application despite the question in the Application form that indicates the need to provide such information where an Application is filed beyond the one-year time frame.

4On March 16, 2009, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. In that Notice, the Tribunal advised the applicant that it appeared that he might not be able to apply to the Tribunal because of delay in filing the Application. The Tribunal also directed the applicant to provide his submissions to explain why he believes that he should be able to apply to the Tribunal in light of the apparent delay in filing his Application. The Notice also informed the applicant that if he did not make submissions explaining why he believes his Application should be decided by the Tribunal, then the Tribunal would decide whether to dismiss or proceed with the Application based only on the information in the Application.

5It is now more than four (4) weeks since the applicant’s submissions were due. The applicant has not filed any submissions to the Tribunal as directed. Accordingly, the Tribunal must decide whether to dismiss or proceed with the Application based on the information in the Application.

6As noted above, a person may not apply to the Tribunal more than a year after the incident to which the Application relates unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith and that no one would be substantially prejudiced by the delay. In order to satisfy the Tribunal that the delay was incurred in good faith, at a minimum, the applicant must provide the Tribunal with a reasonable explanation as to why he or she did not pursue his or her rights under the Code in a timely manner.

7In this case, the applicant has not provided any reason for the more than five year delay in seeking to enforce his rights under the Code. Although it appears from documents provided with the applicant that the applicant complained to the government ministry in question about the conduct in question, as well as to a Member of Parliament and a Member of Provincial Parliament, he has not offered any reason demonstrating that he was unable, for valid reasons, to seek to enforce his rights under the Code in a timely manner.

Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith within the meaning of section 34(2) of the Code. The Application is therefore dismissed.