Bogdan Jarocki v. Custom Wood Fabricating, 2010 HRTO 1511

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bogdan Jarocki

Applicant

-and-

Custom Wood Fabricating and Harold Milstein

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: July 19, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1511

Indexed as: Jarocki v. Custom Wood Fabricating

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 February 23, 2010. The Application was incomplete and the applicant was asked to provide the missing parts of the Application. He provided the missing parts of the Application on May 23, 2010.

2On June 1, 2010, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to advise that it appeared that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application for two reasons. Firstly, the Application was filed more than one year after the alleged discrimination took place. Second, the applicant’s description of what happened did not identify discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

3The applicant was advised that he could make submissions to explain why the Application was within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and that he was required to file any submissions by June 30, 2010. The letter stated that if submissions were not received, the Tribunal would make its decision based on the information in the Application. No submissions have been received.

4The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin. The applicant was laid off by the respondent on January 30, 2009. He indicates that the lay off was due to discrimination and that he also experienced discrimination in the employment prior to the lay off from the time he was hired in 2008.

5The Application was filed on February 23, 2010, which was more than one year after the last alleged discriminatory event. The applicant has not provided any explanation for the delay.

6Sections 34(1) and (2) of the Code provides as follows:

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.

7On the basis of the information in the Application, the Application was filed more than one year after the last alleged discriminatory event. No explanation for the delay has been provided by the applicant and there is accordingly no basis to conclude that the delay was incurred in good faith. The Application is therefore dismissed.