Mercer v. Vic Priestly Contracting, 2009 HRTO 985

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peter Mercer

Applicant

-and-

Vic Priestly Contracting

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: July 7, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 985

Indexed as: Mercer v. Vic Priestly Contracting

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 May 5, 2009, alleging discrimination in employment because of disability. On May 8, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination. The applicant was given 30 days to file additional written submissions explaining the reason for the delay. None were filed, beyond the explanation provided in his Application.

DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION

2The Application states that the date of the last event to which the Application relates was August 22, 2007. The Application was therefore filed 19 months after the incident to which the Application relates. The applicant states in the Application that it took him this time to discover the options available to him.

3Section 34 of the Code reads:

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.

4Given the timing of the events covered by the Application, the Tribunal must determine whether the Code is available to address the applicant's allegations of discrimination. The Registrar will serve the Application on the respondent, as well as a copy of this Interim Decision. The respondent is not required to file a Response at this time.

5The Registrar will schedule a hearing by teleconference. At the hearing the applicant must explain why he believes that the delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith and that no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay. The respondent may make submissions in response and explain what, if any, substantial prejudice will result to them or any other affected person because of the delay.

6If the applicant or respondent wishes to rely on any supporting material for the purpose of the teleconference (including submissions, facts or case law not already provided in the materials before the Tribunal), they are directed to deliver this material to each other, and to the Tribunal, by no later than two weeks before the date scheduled for the teleconference.

7I am not seized of this matter.