Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Kirk Cain Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: May 21, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1176 Indexed as: Cain v. Toronto (City)
1This Decision deals with an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code"). The Application was filed on January 26, 2010. The allegations in the Application concern the applicant's employment and the termination of that employment in 1994. The applicant alleges that the reasons for the termination were discriminatory.
2During his employment the applicant was a member of a union. A grievance was filed following his termination and the matter was eventually considered by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB). According to the Application, the applicant was not successful at the OLRB and unsuccessfully sought judicial review of the OLRB's decision. The Application indicates that in 2002 he attempted to have his case considered by "many persons in authority" but without success and made further contacts in 2005.
3When the Tribunal received the Application, it issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, dated March 20, 2010, on the grounds that the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination without an explanation about how the delay was incurred in good faith and why no substantial prejudice would result to any person affected by the delay.
4The applicant filed submissions in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss and attached a number of cases.
5The submissions indicate that the delay was caused because the applicant was exploring other avenues in an attempt to resolve matters.
6This explanation does not account for the delay from 2005, when he made the last such contact, to 2010 when he filed the Application.
7The fact that a person is pursuing other avenues is not generally accepted as a valid or good faith reason for delay in filing an Application: Cartier v. Northeast Mental Health Centre, 2009 HRTO 1670.
8The cases submitted by the applicant concern time limits generally. The applicant submits that the cases support his contention that his Application should not be dismissed because of the delay. I note that none of the cases concern a delay which approaches the fifteen year delay that occurred in this case. Moreover, the Code allows Applications to be filed more than one year after the alleged discriminatory event(s) provided that there is evidence of a good faith reason for the delay and evidence that no substantial prejudice would result to others affected by the Application. In this case, the applicant has provided no evidence to suggest that the delay was incurred in good faith. A delay of fifteen years would necessarily result in prejudice to others affected by the Application because it would be very difficult to find relevant documents and witnesses. Any witnesses would find it difficult to recall events that occurred so long ago.
9For these reasons, I find that the Application must be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of May, 2010.
"signed by"__________________
Brian Cook Vice-chair