Quinton v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 HRTO 1520

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Benjamin Quinton

Applicant

-and-

Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

Respondent

interiM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: July 13, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1520

Indexed as: Quinton v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

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 November 27, 2009. The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance in goods, services and facilities, on various dates while he was incarcerated, and specifically in relation to not accommodating his food restrictions which arise because of a disability.

2The respondent filed a Response and a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”). In the RFOP, the respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Application because, the respondent submits, it was filed outside the one year limitation period set under section 34(1) of the Code. In the Response, the respondent also notes that the Application does not contain any allegations pertaining to receipt of public assistance.

3The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1290, in which it directed the applicant to provide submissions identifying the allegations in the Application that he claims relates to his claims of discrimination on the basis of receipt of public assistance. It also directed the applicant to provide submissions identifying the allegations in the Application that he claims are timely and the basis upon which he states that the delay in commencing the Application was incurred in good faith in accordance with section 34(2) of the Code. The applicant was given 5 days to file his submissions.

4In the Interim Decision, the Tribunal noted that on receipt of the above-mentioned submissions, or if the applicant did not file submissions as directed, the Tribunal may decide the issue based on the written materials that have been filed or may issue further case management directions regarding the issues. The applicant did not file any submissions on either issue and the time for doing so has now passed.

Receipt of Public Assistance

5The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in the areas of accommodation (housing), services, goods and facilities, and employment on the basis of grounds listed in the Code. In housing, those grounds are race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance. The “receipt of public assistance” is a ground that only pertains to housing. If an applicant alleges discrimination in housing on the basis of receipt of public assistance, the applicant is required to file a Form 1-B Housing with the Tribunal along with his or her Application.

6In his Application, the applicant marked off “receipt of public assistance” as a ground upon which he was discriminated. However, he did not file the required Form 1-B and it does not appear that he makes any allegations specific to “receipt of public assistance”. As noted above, his allegations pertain to the respondent’s alleged failure to accommodate his food restrictions.

7The Application, as it relates to discrimination on the basis of “receipt of public assistance”, is dismissed.

Delay/Timeliness

8Section 34 of the Code provides:

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 subsection 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.

9The Code clearly states, in section 34(2), that an applicant may not apply to the Tribunal more than a year after the last event giving rise to the Application unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith. Where the Tribunal is not satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith, it has no power to relieve against the one-year time limit and to determine the Application. The Tribunal has no power to “condone” delay where it is not satisfied that it was incurred in good faith.

10In the Application, and in addition to his allegations, the applicant provides a listing, with dates, of the different correctional facilities to which he has been sent since September 2008. He also provides a listing of foods that he has received from September 24 to December 10 (although not every date is mentioned). The food listing does not identify a calendar year, but appears to be from 2008. Further, there is a separate document that provides information about October 29, 30 and 31, 2009 and then November 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, 2008. The 2009 entries appear to be, instead, from 2008, as those dates are missing from the food listing from that time period.

11While a number of the applicant’s allegations appear to be beyond the one year limitation period set out in section 34(2), some of them are within the one year period. Accordingly, at this point, the Application is not dismissed for delay and the issue can be considered further by the hearings adjudicator.

12As both parties have agreed to mediate, the Tribunal will schedule the matter for mediation.

13I am not seized of this matter.