Murambiwa v. Intercon Security, 2010 HRTO 784

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Isabel Murambiwa

Applicant

-and-

Intercon Security

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: April 8, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 784

Indexed as: Murambiwa v. Intercon Security

1This is an Application filed on January 12, 2010, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On March 3, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, in which it directed the applicant to provide submissions explaining the delay in filing the Application as the applicant had indicated that the last event occurred on August 15, 2008. In response to the Notice, the applicant filed a letter on March 31, 2010. In the letter she states, among other things, that she is a newcomer to Canada who did not know her rights and found out the options open to her when she sought help. She submits that due to these factors, she did not file her Application on time. I also note that the applicant states in her narrative that she resigned from her employment in April 2009, less than one year before the Application was filed, because of her “medical condition and since the company did not meet (my) request for a desk job”.

3An Application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This includes a decision to dismiss for delay: Battaglia v. Maplehurst Correctional Complex, 2009 HRTO 1167.

4Section 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; 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.

5Based on the information provided by the applicant in the narrative, which is at this stage unchallenged, it is not clear to me that there was a delay in filing the Application. In addition, if there was a delay, it is not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith. Consequently, the Tribunal will continue, at this point, to process the Application.

6The Tribunal shall serve the Application and a copy of this Interim Decision on the respondents. This is not a final decision with respect to the issue of whether the Application is barred by section 34 of the Code. If the respondents take the position that the Tribunal should not accept the Application because of delay, the applicant may be required to provide further evidence and submissions in support of her position.

7I am not seized of this matter.