HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Adriana Fratiloiu
Applicant
-and-
Quality Safety Systems and Brad Hedderson
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Fratiloiu v. Quality Safety Systems
1The applicant filed her 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 reprisal and discrimination in employment on the basis of association. The allegations concern events culminating in the termination of the applicant’s employment on December 19, 2004.
2A Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) was issued on October 13, 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 she believed no substantial prejudice would result to any person affected by the delay. The applicant sent in response submissions on October 15, 2010.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
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 she did not pursue her rights under the Code in a timely manner.
5The applicant states that she was not aware of the reason for her termination in 2004, but knew that she did “excellent work” and that the respondent’s failure to keep her on was unfair. It was not until her husband, who has worked for the company for multiple years, received “corrective action” based on his creed in 2010 that the reason for her own unfair treatment became clear.
6Although the applicant cites reprisal as a ground in her Application, it would appear that the applicant is alleging that she was discriminated against on the ground of creed rather than reprisal. The applicant does not, however, set out any basis in her Application why the respondents in 2004 would have taken her creed into consideration when they decided not to continue to employ her.
7In a similar vein, the applicant asserts that the ground of “association with a person identified by a ground listed above” did not arise until her husband experienced discrimination this year. It would appear that the applicant is claiming that her treatment was part of the “abuse” and “punishment” which her husband experienced. Again, the applicant has failed to set out any particulars that would link her treatment in 2004 with the treatment she alleges her husband is now experiencing.
8Finally, the applicant states that the depression and subsequent medical conditions that arose from the respondents’ failure to continue her employment interfered with her ability to take legal action against the company. However, at no point does she assert that she was incapacitated to the point she was unable to act. Indeed, despite alleging that she continues to feel bad, she has filed this Application and obtained employment.
9The 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 64 month delay was incurred in good faith, the Tribunal is without jurisdiction to deal with this Application.
10The Application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of November, 2010.
“signed by”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair