Kwado Siaw Antwi v. Etobicoke General Hospital, 2010 HRTO 608

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kwado Siaw Antwi

Applicant

-and-

Etobicoke General Hospital

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: March 22, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 608

Indexed as: Antwi v. Etobicoke General Hospital

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.10, as amended (the “Code”), on July 3, 2009, alleging discrimination in the area of goods, services and facilities on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin.

2The allegations relate to an incident which occurred on May 16, 2008, more than 13 months before the filing of the Application.

3On December 17, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. It advised the applicant that the Application may be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power to decide) because the Application appears to have been filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination. The Tribunal invited the applicant to make submissions within 30 days of December 17, 2009, explaining why he believes the Application is within the Tribunal’s power to decide. It advised the applicant, that should he fail to provide further submissions, the Tribunal would render a decision based on the material already filed.

4The applicant has not filed any submissions.

5Section 34 of the Code states:

34.(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.

6There is an issue regarding the Tribunal’s power to hear this matter as a result of the delay. In the circumstances, the Tribunal will consider whether the Application should be dismissed under section 34(1) of the Code or whether it is appropriate for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion under section 34(2) of the Code.

7The applicant has not provided any submissions regarding the reason for delay. In the circumstances, I cannot conclude that the delay was incurred in good faith.

8Accordingly, the Application is dismissed pursuant to section 34(1) of the Code.