HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
John Meriano
Applicant
-and-
Benteler Automotive, Bill Mauris, Greg Thompson, Sean Bates
and Sergio Cavalheio
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta
Indexed as: Meriano v. Benteler Automotive
1This is an Application filed on January 19, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal in respect of employment on the basis of disability and age.
2The Application has not been delivered to the respondents or CAW Local 1285, listed as an affected party. On March 22, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Application appeared to have been filed more than one year after the date of the last incident of alleged discrimination and the Tribunal was not satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and that no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay. The applicant was given 30 days to file written submissions explaining why he believed that the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and should be decided by the Tribunal. He has done so.
3The Application states that the date of the last incident was July 6, 2007. In explaining the delay in filing, the applicant states that he was unaware of certain facts until “some time after the initial instance”. He also states that he relied, to his detriment, on the information given to him by people he thought were knowledgeable.
4Section 34 of the Code reads:
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.
5The Tribunal finds it appropriate to receive the oral submissions from the parties on the issue of whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis of delay. The Registrar will schedule a one-hour hearing by teleconference call. At the hearing the parties may provide their submissions on the application of section 34(1) and (2) of the Code. If the applicant or respondent wishes to rely on any supporting material for the purpose of the teleconference (including facts not already provided in the Application, case law or additional submissions), they are directed to deliver this material to each other, and to the Tribunal, by no later than two weeks before the date scheduled for the teleconference.
6The Registrar will serve the Application on the respondents and the affected party, as well as a copy of the applicant’s letter dated March 24, 2010 and this Interim Decision. The respondents are not required to file a Response (Form 2) at this time.
7I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 19^th^ day of April, 2010.
“signed by”
Jay Sengupta
Vice-chair