HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Eddy

Applicant

-and-

Nissin Transport (Canada) Inc. and John Tierney

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: October 14, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2088

Indexed as: Eddy v. Nissin Transport

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Robert Eddy, Applicant ) On his own behalf

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on June 16, 2010, alleging discrimination in employment by the respondents on the basis of disability. The applicant indicated in his Application that the last incident of alleged discrimination took place on June 8, 2009.

2A Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) was issued on September 20, 2010, indicating that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination.

DELAY

3Section 34 states, in part:

(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.

4As stated by the Tribunal in Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241, “the Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence, and file their application within one year, when they may seek to pursue a human rights claim.” When filing outside this one year time limit, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the Tribunal with an explanation as to why he did not pursue his rights under the Code in a timely manner.

5In response to the NOID, the applicant indicated that he erred when he indicated that the incident that took place on June 8, 2009, which involved him participating in a work trial, was the last incident. He alleges that, subsequent to that, on July 15, 2009, he received a letter indicating that the respondent company had no suitable modified work for him. Moreover, in his Application, the applicant states that he has not been given severance pay and, accordingly, the corporate respondent is his current employer, even though they have not communicated with him.

[6] Given the applicant’s submissions, I am not satisfied it is plain and obvious that the Application is filed outside the one year limitation period. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to deal with the Application.

[7] This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of this Application.

[8] I am not seized of this matter.