Simmons v. Ostro, 2010 HRTO 2157

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John Simmons

Applicant

-and-

Michael Ostro and Sylvia Fahim

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: October 26, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2157

Indexed as: Simmons v. Ostro

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on January 26, 2009, alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability. On March 23, 2009, the applicant also filed a Form 1-C, which refers to allegations of discrimination in the area of goods, services and facilities.

2This Application originally named as respondents a hospital and the Ministry of Transportation, in addition to the personal respondents. After a teleconference hearing and pursuant to an Interim Decision dated September 15, 2010, 2010 HRTO 1884, I dismissed the Application as against the hospital. In the course of that teleconference, the Ministry raised a timeliness issue in respect of the allegations against it. The allegations against the Ministry are that it breached the Code in suspending the applicant’s license, which occurred in July of 2007. During the course of the teleconference, the applicant confirmed that he had had no further dealings with the Ministry since the date his license was suspended. This raised the issue of the one-year time limit in respect of the allegations against the Ministry, as those allegations were been made some eighteen months since the applicant’s last interaction with the Ministry.

3I invited the applicant to identify to the Tribunal, in writing, any facts that might distinguish his situation in respect of the Ministry from his situation with respect to the hospital, and indicated that, if the applicant were to send no submissions on this issue, the Application would be dismissed as against the Ministry, with the remainder of the Application to proceed.

4The applicant was required to send his written submission, if any, to the Tribunal by September 30, 2010. The Tribunal has received no submissions from the applicant.

DECISION

5Pursuant to section 34 of the Code, where an application is filed more than a year after the incident to which the application relates (or after the last incident in a series of incidents), the Tribunal cannot deal with the application unless it is satisfied that the delay in filing the application was incurred in good faith. For the same reasons as those noted in the September 15, 2010 decision (above) in this case, I conclude that section 34 bars the Application as against the Ministry.

6The Application against the Ministry of Transportation is dismissed. The Ministry will be removed as a respondent to the Application, and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

CASE MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

7That part of the Application that makes allegations against the personal respondents concerns different facts, and had been made within the time period set out in the Code. The personal respondents have indicated that they would be willing to attempt mediation. It appears that the applicant has not indicated whether he would be willing to attempt mediation. The Tribunal will contact the applicant to inquire about his willingness to participate in mediation, and the remainder of the Application will proceed.

8I am not seized of this matter.