Jennifer Knowles v. Renfrew County District School Board, 2010 HRTO 1131

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jennifer Knowles Applicant

-and-

Renfrew County District School Board Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: May 19, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1131 Indexed as: Knowles v. Renfrew County District School Board

1The applicant filed her Application on November 3, 2009, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and marital status. The allegations against the respondent span the period from sometime in 2000 to December 2003, when the applicant states she quit her job.

2A Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") was issued on January 27, 2010, indicating that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination and the applicant had not explained how the delay was incurred in good faith. This NOID was returned to the Tribunal marked "Return to Sender" and a second NOID was sent to the applicant via email on March 18, 2010. The applicant sent in response submissions to this Notice.

Analysis and Decision

3Section 34 states, in part:

(1) If a person believes that any of her 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.

4As stated by the Tribunal in Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241, "the Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence, and file their application within one year, when they may seek to pursue a human rights claim." When filing outside this one-year time limit, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the Tribunal with an explanation as to whys he did not pursue her rights under the Code in a timely manner.

5The applicant's response focuses on the damage to her life she attributes to the treatment she received at the school rather than explaining the reason for the delay in filing. For example, the applicant states her marriage ended in August 2009 and she lost visitation rights with her daughter as of December 31, 2009. The applicant asserts that had she been properly accommodated by the respondent School Board, she would have maintained custody of her daughter and her marriage would still be intact.

6The applicant does not allege she was unaware of her rights under the Code; moreover, she makes no attempt to explain why she waited almost six years to file her Application against the respondent. The applicant has, accordingly, provided no information on which the Tribunal could conclude that the delay was incurred in good faith.

7The Tribunal is without jurisdiction to deal with this Application, given the absence of evidence that the almost six-year delay was incurred in good faith. The Application is dismissed.