Cooper v. Goodmans, 2010 HRTO 1357

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nyoka Cooper

Applicant

-and-

Goodmans LLP

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: June 15, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1357

Indexed as: Cooper v. Goodmans

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 December 14, 2009.

2The respondent filed a Response on May 5, 2010, which requested, among other things, that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that it was not filed with the Tribunal within the one-year statutory deadline.

3The applicant filed a Response to a Request for an Order on May 25, 2010, which addressed the timeliness issue.

4The statutory deadline for filing an application with the Tribunal and the circumstances under which a late application will be accepted are set out in subsections 34(1) and (2) of the Code:

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.

5The parties’ submissions indicate that they disagree as to when the last alleged incident of discrimination, the respondent’s termination of the applicant’s employment, occurred. The respondent submitted that it terminated her employment in September 2007, and sent her a termination letter by registered mail, but she failed to pick it up. The applicant submitted that she does not believe that the respondent sent her a termination letter at that time because, although she had changed addresses, she had arranged with Canada Post to have all mail forwarded to her new address. She stated that she never received the letter at her new address. The applicant appears to believe that the respondent created the letter and backdated it when she requested that she be allowed to return to work in February 2009.

6In my view, the timeliness issue cannot be determined without further evidence as to when the respondent terminated the applicant’s employment. The Tribunal therefore directs the respondent to file with the Tribunal and deliver to the applicant by no later than June 22, 2010 all documentary evidence, including but not limited to registration and tracking information from Canada Post, which supports its submission that it terminated the applicant’s employment and sent her a termination letter in September 2007. The respondent may include a brief written submission with any documentation.

7The applicant may file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondent a brief written submission in response by no later than June 29, 2010.

8I am not seized of this matter.