<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
<!--mc:open:cover-parties-->
**Between:**
<!--mc:close:cover-parties-->
Gerard Couling
Applicant
-and-
University of Guelph Alumni Association and Ontario University Athletic Association
Respondents
---
**Decision**
**Adjudicator:** Alan Whyte
**Date:** January 26, 2010
**Citation:** 2010 HRTO 170
**Indexed as:** Couling v. University of Guelph Alumni Association
---
**Written Submissions By:**
Gerrard Couling, Applicant (On his own behalf)
---
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
[1] This is an Application under section 34 of the *Human Rights Code*, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code") which alleges discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of disability.
[2] On receipt of the Application, the Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, dated November 3, 2009. The Notice indicated that it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination. The applicant was provided an opportunity to make written submissions on this issue, which he did. This Decision will decide the question of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in this case.
[3] The essence of the applicant's case appears to be that he was barred by both respondents from participating in university athletics. Although it is not clear, it appears that the applicant assaulted someone in 1996 and because of this he was barred from participation in university athletics. There is also reference in the Application to an incident in 2004 or 2005 in which the applicant alleges that a drama professor disclosed the applicant's disability, presumably in a classroom setting, although that is not stated in the Application.
[4] It is also not clear whether the University of Guelph Alumni Association ("the UGAA") advised the applicant in 1996 that he was barred from participation in University sports, or whether he did not receive that information until 2005 or 2006 when he was advised of that by someone at the University of Toronto. It appears that that person was speaking on behalf of the Ontario University Athletic Association ("OUAA") and possibly the UGAA.
[5] The applicant submits that after the 1996 incident, he was without proper identification until 1998. He has produced a medical note which indicates that he was "unable to attend court" from 1997 to 2002. The applicant also states that he met the person from the University of Toronto in May of 2009 by chance in Toronto, at which time she confirmed her previous statements in 2005 or 2006 to the effect that he was barred from participation in university athletics. Finally, the applicant states that a number of professors at various institutions were "using misinformation" and that at a football game at Varsity Stadium in Toronto in September 2009, the announcer made detailed comments about his human rights complaint (mentioning his name).
[6] If the applicant was advised by the UGAA in 1996 that he was barred from university athletics, he has provided no explanation for his delay in initiating his human rights Application between 1996 and 1997, nor has he provided an explanation for the delay from 2002 until the date of filing of this Application, September 29, 2009.
[7] As the applicant was advised by the OUAA in 2005 or 2006 that he was barred, he has failed to provide an explanation as to why he did not initiate his human rights Application against that entity at any time earlier than September 2009.
[8] I reject the applicant's submission that his chance encounter with the person from the University of Toronto in May 2009, at which time the earlier information about his barring was confirmed, has the effect of extending the statutory time limit of one year contained in section 34(1). If he was of the view that what he was told in 2005 or 2006 was discriminatory, he had an obligation to move forward with an Application at that time.
[9] I also reject the applicant's submissions about the announcer's statements at the football game in September 2009 as being highly improbable.
[10] With respect to the allegedly discriminatory statements made by the drama professor in 2004 or 2005, the applicant has provided no explanation for his delay in the initiation of his Application in relation to those matters.
[11] I therefore find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 34(1) of the Code to entertain this Application as it was filed more that one year after the last incident of discrimination or the last incident in a series of incidents. I further find that the applicant has not satisfied me that the delay in the initiation of the Application was "incurred in good faith" under section 34(2) of the Code.
[12] The Application is therefore dismissed.
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
Dated at Toronto this 26^th^ day of January, 2010.
"Signed by"
_________________________________
Alan Whyte
Vice-chair
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel