HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Karunanithy Sinnathurai
Applicant
-and-
Norseman Plastics
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Sinnathurai v. Norseman Plastics
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
Karunanithy Sinnathurai, Applicant ) Self-represented
)
1The applicant filed his Application on April 28, 2010 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin. The allegations concern events culminating in the termination of the applicant’s employment on April 1, 2008.
2A Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) was issued on September 1, 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 and the applicant had not explained how the delay was incurred in good faith and why he believed no substantial prejudice would result to any person affected by the delay. The applicant sent in response submissions to this NOID on September 22, 2010.
Analysis and Decision
3Section 34 of the Code states, in part:
(1) If a person believes that any of her 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 his submissions, the applicant largely repeats the information he supplied in his Application. He was part of a union and indicates that following his termination, he expected that his union would “take up [his] case and strongly fight for [his] reinstatement.” He states that he raised this with his union and that ultimately it “avoided taking up” his matter. The applicant does not talk about how long this took or why he did not, at the same time, pursue a timely Application before this Tribunal.
6The applicant also states that he also pursued the matter with the company, and to that end produced a medical certificate stating that he was fit to resume his job as of August 11, 2008. He does not explain why he waited for more than 20 months after that letter was submitted to file his Application.
7The applicant has provided no information on which the Tribunal could conclude that the delay was incurred in good faith. Given the absence of evidence that the two-year delay was incurred in good faith, the Tribunal is without jurisdiction to deal with this Application.
8The Application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of November, 2010.
”signed by”________________
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair