Reid v. Ontario March of Dimes, 2009 HRTO 747

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

William Reid

Applicant

-and-

Ontario March of Dimes – SW Region, VON Canada (Middlesex Elgin), Income Security Programs Branch – DSB, Brian Dunbar, Carol Knowles, Lyn Leclair, Nancy Leslie, and Connie Milliken

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: June 3, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 747

Indexed as: Reid v. Ontario March of Dimes

Background

1The applicant filed this Application on April 22, 2009 under Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination on the basis of perceived mental disability in the areas of goods, services and facilities, contracts, and membership in vocational associations.

2The Tribunal did a completeness check and requested additional information concerning identification and co-ordinates of the respondents. The applicant provided the missing information on May 8, 2009.

3On May 11, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis the Application was filed more than a year after the last incident described in the Application. The Tribunal invited submissions from the applicant as to whether or not his Application satisfied the conditions of section 34 of the Code. The applicant provided such submissions by way of letters dated May 15 and 19, 2009.

DECISION

4Section 34 of the Code provides:

(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 appears that the applicant believes he was discriminated against when his participation in a vocational placement and a volunteer program were terminated in December 2007 because of unfavourable reports. The applicant alleges that the reports disparaged him on the basis of perceived mental disability. The applicant explained that his Application was filed beyond the one year timeline because he only became aware of the depth of the discrimination when he obtained access to the reports in May 2008.

6At this preliminary stage, the applicant’s Response appears to satisfy the requirement of s. 34(1). The Tribunal shall serve the Application and a copy of this Interim Decision on the respondents. This is not a final decision of the Tribunal regarding any jurisdictional issues in respect of this Application, and in particular, it remains open to the respondents to raise the conditions of s. 34(2).

7I am not seized of this matter.