Tabitha Murphy v. Chase Global Foods and Gino Tomasi, 2010 HRTO 545

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tabitha Murphy

Applicant

-and-

Chase Global Foods and Gino Tomasi

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: March 12, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 545

Indexed as: Murphy v. Chase Global Foods

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on November 23, 2009 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual solicitation and advances contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

2The applicant alleges that the individual respondent made sexual advances and comments of a sexual nature over the course two or three days in the spring of 2000.

3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) advising the applicant that the Application appeared to have been filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination. The Notice invited written submissions from the applicant on the issue of dismissal on the basis of timeliness. The applicant did not file written submissions in response to the Notice.

4The Tribunal then rendered an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 173, concluding that the Application had been filed outside the one year limitation period provided for in the Code. The Tribunal invited submissions from the applicant on the issue of whether the nine year delay in filing the Application was based on good faith. The applicant did not provide submissions in response to the Interim Decision.

ANALYSIS

5Section 34 of the Code allows applications alleging infringements of rights under the Code to be made within one year’s time of the alleged incident or the last incident in a series. It also gives the Tribunal discretion to accept late applications in certain circumstances.

6Section 34 states:

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.

7Accordingly, the Tribunal will not deal with an application filed more than a year after the incident, or a last incident in a series, unless it is satisfied that:

a. the delay was incurred in good faith; and

b. no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

8It is clear from the Application that the incidents complained of occurred in 2000, some nine years before the Application was filed. Based on the material before me, I am unable to conclude that the nine year delay in filing the Application was based on good faith.

9The Application is dismissed pursuant to section 34 of the Code.