Sona Barua v. Governing Council of the University of Toronto and David Naylor, 2009 HRTO 860

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sona Barua

Applicant

-and-

Governing Council of the University of Toronto and David Naylor

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: June 16, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 860

Indexed as: Barua v. University of Toronto

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to schedule a half-day hearing to hear submissions from the parties on two preliminary issues raised by the respondents.

2The applicant, who self identifies as a South Asian immigrant, filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on January 16, 2009, which alleges that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to education services because of his ethnic origin.

3Specifically, the applicant alleges that the respondents treated him differently than a similarly situated White student in dealing with allegations of plagiarism. He attached to his Application a decision of the University Tribunal dated November 14, 2007, which found him guilty of plagiarism and suspended him from the university for three years. He states that he applied to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) more than one year from the date of the last event because he could not find the HRTO’s address.

4The respondents filed a Response on April 22, 2009, which denies the allegation of discrimination. The Response also requests that the HRTO dismiss the Application (a) pursuant to section 34 of the Code because there is no compelling reason given by the applicant for the delay in filing his Application, and (b) pursuant to section 45.1 of Code because the decision of the University Tribunal fully and appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

5The applicant filed a Reply on June 2, 2009, which does not clearly address these two issues.

6The time requirements for filing applications with the HRTO are provided for in section 34 of the Code:

(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.

7Section 45.1 of the Code gives the HRTO the discretion to dismiss an application that has been appropriately dealt with in another legal proceeding:

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.

8Rule 22 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides:

22.1 The Tribunal may dismiss part or all of the Application where it determines, under section 45.1 of the Code, that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of part or all of an Application.

22.2 The parties will have the opportunity to make oral submissions before the Tribunal dismisses an Application under Rule 22.1.

9In the circumstances, it would be fair, just and expeditious to hear the issues identified by the respondents as preliminary matters. The Registrar will schedule a half-day hearing to hear submissions from the parties with respect to these issues.

10If 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 the HRTO by no later than two weeks before the date of the hearing.

11I am not seized of this matter.