Liddell v. Pitney Bowes Canada, 2010 HRTO 1703

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Shaun Liddell Applicant

-and-

Pitney Bowes Canada Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: August 16, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1703 Indexed as: Liddell v. Pitney Bowes Canada

BACKGROUND

1This Decision deals with an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code"). The Application was filed on April 14, 2010 and alleges discrimination in employment. The applicant's narrative indicates that the last alleged discriminatory incident was in and around late March 2009, when the applicant's employment ended.

2On June 3, 2010, the Tribunal's Registrar sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to the applicant which noted that the Application appeared to be outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination. The Notice invited the applicant to file written submissions explaining why the Application is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Notice indicated that if no submissions were filed, the Tribunal would proceed to make its decision based only on the information in the Application.

3On June 28, 2010, the Tribunal received correspondence from the applicant seeking an extension of time to file submissions in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss. The Tribunal granted the applicant's request and provided the applicant until July 23, 2010 to file submissions. As of the date of this Decision, no submissions have been received from the applicant.

DECISION

4Section 34 of the Code states:

(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 Tribunal will not deal with an application filed more than a year after the incident, or a last incident in a series, unless it is satisfied that:

a. the delay was incurred in good faith; and

b. no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

6On review of the material before me, I am satisfied that this Application may not proceed. I find that the last incident of alleged discrimination cited in the Application is March 28, 2009, the date of employment termination. Accordingly, the Application, filed over one year later does not meet the requirements of section 34(1). The applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation for the delay that leads to the conclusion that it was incurred in good faith.

7The Tribunal has set a fairly high onus on applicants to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. See, for example, Klein v. Toronto Zionist Council, 2009 HRTO 241. The mandatory one-year limitation period is consistent with the Code's objective that human rights claims should be dealt with fairly and expeditiously. Thus, the Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence, and file their application within one year, when they seek to pursue a human rights claim. Based on the information before the Tribunal, the applicant has not demonstrated why he could not meet the required deadline and that the delay in filing this Application was incurred in good faith as required under s. 34(2) of the Code.

8In sum, I am not persuaded that the delay in bringing this Application was incurred in good faith. It is not necessary for me to consider whether substantial prejudice would result from the delay. I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to process the Application because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination described in the Application and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

9The Application is dismissed.