HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Tabitha Murphy
Applicant
-and-
Chase Global Foods and Gino Tomasi
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty
Indexed as: Murphy v. Chase Global Foods
1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on November 23, 2009 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual solicitation and advances contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).
2The applicant alleges that the individual respondent made sexual advances and comments of a sexual nature over the course two or three days in the spring of 2000.
3The Tribunal administratively issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss advising the applicant that the Application appears to have been filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination.
4The Tribunal invited written submissions from the applicant on the on the issue of dismissal. The applicant has not filed written submissions and the time for doing so has elapsed.
Analysis
5Section 34 of the Code allows applications alleging infringements of rights under the Code to be made within one year time of the alleged incident or the last incident in a series. It also gives the Tribunal discretion to accept late applications in certain circumstances.
6Section 34 states:
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.
7The 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.
Was the Application Filed in Time?
8It is clear from the Application that the incidents complained of occurred in 2000, some nine years before the Application was filed.
9I find that the Application was filed outside the one year limitation period provided for in section 34 of the Code.
Was the delay in good faith?
10The next question for me to consider is whether the delay was incurred in good faith. At a minimum, this requires that the applicant provide some reasonable explanation for the delay: Corrigan v. Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District, 2008 HRTO 424.
11In determining the issue of good faith, the Tribunal has considered factors such as whether Code-related reasons (such as mental health issues) directly impeded the applicant’s ability to file an application; the nature of the allegations; and whether the applicant was able to raise allegations in other venues during the period in question. See Quimado v. S.A. Armstrong Ltd., 2009 HRTO 110 and Doyle v. Canarm, 2009 HRTO 674
12In explaining the delay in filing the Application, the applicant briefly states that, until recently, she did not have the confidence or self-esteem to deal with these allegations openly.
13Based on the material before me, I am unable to determine whether the nine year delay in filing the Application was based on good faith.
14Within ten days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant may file additional submissions regarding the reason for the delay. She should explain whether the factors identified in paragraph 10 of this Interim Decision apply in the circumstances of this Application.
15If the applicant does not file additional submissions, the Tribunal will determine the issue based on the information contained in the Application.
16I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 27^th^ day of January, 2010.
“Signed By”
Michelle Flaherty
Vice-chair```