HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Michael Hodge
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha
Indexed as: Hodge v. Ontario (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
BACKGROUND
1The applicant filed an Application dated March 1, 2010 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in contracts because of citizenship, and reprisal.
2The Application states that the date of the last event is July 28, 1976, when the applicant began a period of incarceration of just over nine months further to a court order. He alleges that he was “forcibly confined” from July 28, 1976 to May 9, 1977 at the Ottawa Detention Centre, where he claims he was “kept locked up in the maximum security section and once placed in prison twenty four hour lock up isolation for a week, on a restricted diet….” The applicant claims he lost opportunities as a result of his incarceration, and seeks damages as compensation.
3On April 15, 2010, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because it appeared the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination described in his Application, and the Tribunal is not satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith. The applicant was given 30 days to make submissions to the Tribunal regarding delay. No submissions were received.
DECISION
4Section 34 of the Code states:
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 Application was not filed within one year of the date that the applicant alleges the respondent last discriminated against him, and I therefore must determine whether the delay in filing this Application was incurred in good faith.
6The applicant does not provide any explanation whatsoever for the delay. With no further information about why he was prevented from claiming his rights under the Code, I find that the applicant has not satisfied the burden of demonstrating that the delay in filing this Application was “incurred in good faith” as required under s. 34(2) of the Code.
9While it is not strictly necessary for me to address it, it is worth noting that this Application is problematic in other respects as well. There are no facts pleaded connecting the alleged discrimination to the ground of citizenship. It appears that the applicant simply objects to the fact that he was sentenced to a prison term. The jurisprudence of the Tribunal is clear that court processes and orders are not subject to the Code. See Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390 and Belso v. York Region Police, 2009 HRTO 757. For this reason, it is unlikely the Tribunal would have had the power to proceed with the Application, irrespective of the issue of delay.
10This Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 28^th^ day of June, 2010.
”signed by”________________
Faisal Bhabha
Vice-chair