Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
John LaBerge
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by
The Minister of Community and Social Services and David Chalupa
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: LaBerge v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination in housing, goods, services and facilities on the basis of disability.
2The applicant alleges that renovation work was commenced on his matrimonial home, in 1992, under a program called “The Accessibility Home Rehabilitation Program”. The applicant alleges that he was not able to provide input into the renovation work and that the renovation work, when completed, was of poor quality and caused significant problems in his house. The applicant alleges that he and his wife are in receipt of Ontario Disability Support Program and Canada Pension Plan disability benefits and they do not have the finances available to correct the damage caused by the 1992 renovation work. They have tried to get assistance from various government programs without success.
3The applicant identifies May 9, 2009 as being the date of the last event upon which he relies. However, the Application does not contain any allegations or information from 2009. There are no allegations beyond 1992 and no information in the entire Application beyond 2004.
4The respondents filed partial Responses in which they maintain that the applicant signed a release in 1998 (“the release”). Amongst other issues raised, the respondents request that the Tribunal dismiss the Application in light of the release and the Application being untimely. The applicant did not file a Reply and the time for so doing has now passed.
5The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, dated April 7, 2010, 2010 HRTO 762, setting a timetable for the parties to provide written submissions with respect to the delay issue. The Tribunal stated that upon receipt of the parties’ submissions, the Tribunal may decide the delay issue based on the written materials that have been filed or may issue further case management directions regarding the issues of delay and/or the other issues raised by the respondents.
6The applicant filed submissions dated April 8, 2010. The individual respondent filed submissions dated April 13, 2010 and the Ministry filed submissions dated April 14, 2010.
DECISION
7Section 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;
(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.
8In order to satisfy the Tribunal that the delay was incurred in good faith, 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. The Tribunal has recognized that this is a fairly high onus. See Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241.
9The allegations in the Application are clearly about the disrepair of the applicant’s home following renovations conducted under a now defunct Provincial Government program. The documentation supplied to the Tribunal clearly shows that the applicant knew about the alleged deficiencies by the mid to late 1990s and he commenced legal action against one of the respondents, which resulted in minutes of settlement between the parties in 1998.
10The applicant submits that the issues involving his home are still ongoing, have created other problems within the home and the Ministry has no program to fix or address these problems which were created under another program. The documentation shows that the applicant and his wife have raised their concerns, during different years, and particularly in 2007, with different people and organizations in the hopes that their repair work would be completed at no cost to them.
11The Tribunal has held that if the applicant fails to demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith it is not necessary to make a determination as to whether anyone has been substantially prejudiced by the delay. See Esanu v. Georgetown Non-contact Hockey League, 2009 HRTO 579, Dean v. Brantford Office Machines, 2010 HRTO 385, and [Chiu v. Long, 2010 HRTO 910](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2010/201