Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Cyril Chassie
Applicant
-and-
Niagara Regional Police Services and Niagara Regional Police Association
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Chassie v. Niagara Regional Police Services
Reasons for Decision
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 20, 2009, alleging that the respondents discriminated against him in respect of employment on the basis of disability and age. The applicant was employed in the position of Court Liaison Officer. The applicant alleges that in July 2002 he became aware of a meeting held in March 2002 at the Police Association Hall at which time other unit members were advised about positions being re-evaluated and possible retroactive pay following the re-evaluation. The applicant alleges that he was not informed of the March 2002 meeting because he was on a leave from work due to illness and therefore he did not attend the meeting. The applicant was not able to request a re-evaluation of his position and did not receive retroactive pay.
2On May 28, 2009, the Tribunal sent the applicant (through his legal counsel) a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. In that Notice, the Tribunal advised the applicant that the Application appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because of the delay in filing the Application. The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide his submissions to explain why, in all the circumstances, the Application was within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
3Section 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 gives the Tribunal discretion to accept late applications 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.
4In responding to the Tribunal’s Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the applicant, though his counsel, provided a historical background of the his attempts to resolve the issue with other individuals, including the Chief of Police for the respondent Niagara Regional Police Services, the General Counsel for the respondent Niagara Regional Police Association (“the association”) and the association’s President. The applicant submitted that he finally received a response from the association in February 2008. The applicant submitted that the Application was not filed until 2009 due to the changes in the Code (there were a number of significant changes made to the Code in 2008) and advice from the Ontario Human Rights Commission to file after January 2009.
5The applicant also submitted that he suffered from a number of health problems from 2002 to 2008. He stated that some of his health problems required hospitalization, which were followed by periods of physiotherapy. The last surgery mentioned in the submissions is in March 2008, and the last period of physiotherapy mentioned is April to September 2008.
6Pursuant to s. 34 of the Code, where an application is filed more than a year after the incident to which the Application relates (or after the last incident in a series of incidents), the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the Application unless it is satisfied that the delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith and would not cause substantial prejudice to a party affected by the delay. 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. Where there is great delay in filing an application, the Tribunal will take that into account in assessing whether the reasons offered by the applicant justify the lengthy delay.
7In this case, the applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation to justify the very long delay in filing the Application or to satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant was unable, for valid reasons, to pursue his allegations under the Code against the respondents in a timely manner and that the delay was incurred in good faith.
8The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the Application and the Application is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of July, 2009.
“Signed by”
Alison Renton
Vice-chair