LaBerge v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2010 HRTO 762

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John LaBerge

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services and David Chalupa

Respondents

interiM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: April 7, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 762

Indexed as: LaBerge v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination in housing, goods, services and facilities on the basis of disability.

2The applicant alleges that renovation work was commenced on his matrimonial home, in 1992, under a program called “The Accessibility Home Rehabilitation Program”. The applicant alleges that he was not able to provide input into the renovation work and that the renovation work, when completed, was of poor quality and caused significant problems in his house. The applicant alleges that he and his wife are in receipt of Ontario Disability Support Program and Canada Pension Plan disability benefits and they do not have the finances available to correct the damage caused by the 1992 renovation work. They have tried to get assistance from various government programs without success. The applicant identifies May 9, 2009 as being the date of the last event upon which he relies; however, the Application does not contain any allegations or information from 2009. There are no allegations beyond 1992 and no information in the entire Application beyond 2004.

3The respondents filed partial Responses in which they maintain that the applicant signed a release in 1998 (“the release”). Amongst other issues raised, the respondents request that the Tribunal dismiss the Application in light of the release and the Application being untimely. The applicant did not file a Reply and the time for so doing has now passed.

4The purpose of this Interim Decision is to consider whether the Application should be dismissed because of delay.

5Section 34 of the Code provides:

(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;

(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.

6The Tribunal is not in a position to determine the delay issue without further submissions from the applicant. The applicant is therefore directed to deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal written submissions addressing the delay issue, and in particular, identifying the allegations in the Application that he claims are timely and the basis upon which he states that the delay in commencing the Application was incurred in good faith in accordance with section 34(2) of the Code. The submissions must be delivered and filed within 5 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

7The respondents are directed to deliver to the applicant and each other and file with the Tribunal submissions in reply, and any further submissions they wish to make directed to the issue of substantial prejudice under section 34(2) of the Code within 5 days from the date of the applicant’s submissions.

8On receipt of the above-mentioned submissions, or in the absence of the applicant filing any submissions, the Tribunal may decide the issue based on the written materials that have been filed or may issue further case management directions regarding the issues of delay and/or the other issues raised by the respondents.

9I am not seized.