Heslin v. Univar Canada, 2010 HRTO 1885

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Richard Heslin

Applicant

-and-

Univar Canada Ltd., Medisys Corporate Health LP,

Teamsters Local Union No. 1979, Gerald Briand and Judith Kennedy

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: September 16, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1885

Indexed as: Heslin v. Univar Canada

1This is an Application pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant is employed by Univar, whose sick leave benefits plan is administered by Medisys. Teamsters Local Union No. 1979 is his collective bargaining representative. The Application relates to the denial of sick leave benefits for a period in July 2008.

2The parties have filed a variety of Requests for Order and Requests for Summary Hearing. In the circumstances, I need only deal with the Requests for Order During Proceedings asking that the Application be dismissed on the basis of delay, to which the Applicant has responded. I find that the Application has been filed outside the one-year time limit in s. 34 of the Code and that the applicant has not shown that the delay was incurred in good faith.

3Sections 34(1) and (2) of the Code read 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.

(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.

4This Application was signed on December 16, 2009 and filed on December 17, 2009. It relates to the denial of sick leave benefits for the period July 15, 2008 to July 31, 2008. The request for benefits was denied on July 17, 2008. The applicant appealed the decision and he was advised that his application for benefits was still declined by letter dated July 31, 2008. The applicant filed a grievance dated August 14, 2008. The grievance was denied on August 18, 2008 and the Union took no further action. The applicant wrote a letter to Medisys again on October 1, 2008, suggesting that the benefits were denied contrary to the Code.

5The applicant alleges the last event was in December 2009, when he wrote to Medisys and Univar to advise them that other claims with the same diagnosis had been granted and his claim was still refused. He says the respondents were provided with new information and failed to reverse the decision. He makes no arguments suggesting that any delay was incurred in good faith.

6I find that the Application has been filed outside the one-year time limit in the Code. The denial of benefits took place in July of 2008 and the appeal and grievance were filed at that time. The events that the applicant alleges were discriminatory all occurred prior to the end of August 2009. By objecting to the same decision again over a year later, the applicant cannot unilaterally create a “series of incidents” within the meaning of s. 34(1)(b). The incident or series of incidents to which the Application relates took place outside the one-year period. The applicant has cited no reasons that would constitute good faith. Therefore, the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

7Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.