[1] This Interim Decision deals with an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). The Application was filed on January 7, 2010. The applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability and age. He alleges a series of discriminatory events, “culminating” in August 2008.

[2] Section 34(1) 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.

[3] Section 34(2) provides:

34(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.

[4] On March 19, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because it appeared that the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination and it was not clear that the delay was incurred in good faith or that the respondent might experience substantial prejudice because of the delay.

[5] The applicant filed submissions. These were reviewed in Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 1050 and I concluded that it was not plain and obvious that the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination. The Interim Decision noted that it was not a final decision on the delay issue and that the issue could be raised again in the future.

[6] The Application was served on the respondent and a full Response was received. The respondent asks the Tribunal to dismiss the Application because it was filed more than a year after the last incident of alleged discrimination, the delay was not incurred in good faith and the respondent has experienced substantial prejudice because of the delay. In the alternative, the respondent denies the allegations of discrimination.

[7] The applicant filed a Reply that takes issue with the points raised in the Response. He submits that the delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith. In particular, he submits that he was suffering from a significant disability that made it impossible to file an Application earlier than he did. The applicant has filed some medical reports in support of his position.

[8] The respondent disputes that the delay was incurred in good faith. The respondent notes that during the delay period, the applicant was able to retain counsel to pursue other matters. The respondent further submits that it will experience substantial prejudice because of the delay because some key witnesses are no longer available.

[9] There is also an issue about the extent of the delay. The Application alleges that the applicant experienced a series of discriminatory events that “culminated” in August 2008. Some of the earlier alleged events occurred several years ago. The respondent submits that the alleged events were not a “series of events” but were rather unrelated events.

[10] Having reviewed the documents submitted by the parties, I find that further evidence is required in order to determine whether the conditions of section 34(2) have been met. In particular, I require further evidence about the applicant’s medical condition in the period before he filed the Application. I also require more particulars from the respondent regarding its claim of substantial prejudice. In particular, it is not clear if the claimed prejudice arises from the delay subsequent to the “culminating event” in August 2008 or whether it relates to the length of time covered by the alleged “series of events”.

[11] The Tribunal will schedule a half day oral hearing in order to hear evidence and submissions on the issue of whether the delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith and whether substantial prejudice will result to the respondent if the Application is heard by the Tribunal.

[12] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 27^th day of August, 2010.

“Signed by”

Brian Cook

Vice-chair

Andrew Langlois v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2010 HRTO 1778

Case Summary

[2] Section 34(1) of the Code provides as follows:

[3] Section 34(2) provides:

[11] The Tribunal will schedule a half day oral hearing in order to hear evidence and submissions on the issue of whether the delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith and whether substantial prejudice will result to the respondent if the Application is heard by the Tribunal.

[12] I am not seized.

Andrew Langlois v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2010 HRTO 1778

Case Summary

[2] Section 34(1) of the Code provides as follows:

[3] Section 34(2) provides:

[11] The Tribunal will schedule a half day oral hearing in order to hear evidence and submissions on the issue of whether the delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith and whether substantial prejudice will result to the respondent if the Application is heard by the Tribunal.

[12] I am not seized.