HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Samuray Diler Applicant
-and-
Cambridge Memorial Hospital Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: September 15, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1700 Indexed as: Diler v. Cambridge Memorial Hospital
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on May 3, 2010 in alleging discrimination in services by the respondent on the basis of place of origin, citizenship, disability and creed. The Application asserts that two doctors at the hospital prescribed her, without her knowledge, a controlled drug.
2A Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) was issued on June 8, 2011 indicating that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination.
3Though at paragraph 7 of the Application the applicant asserts that the last incident of discrimination occurred on May 2, 2011, it is apparent that the narrative of the Application does not support this assertion. The allegations of the doctors improper prescription of controlled drugs commences in 2001 until at the latest 2006. In fact, the applicant asserts in her narrative that her condition stabilized in 2006 and that since then she has not sought further treatment for her condition.
4The applicant filed submissions with respect to the NOID stating that she only discovered, in mid-May 2010 that the drug that she had been prescribed was a controlled substance. It is her position that she filed within one year of this knowledge and that therefore the Tribunal should not dismiss her Application. The applicant filed with her submissions a prescription from 2001 which clearly identifies the name of the controlled drug that she was prescribed.
DELAY
5Section 34 states, in part:
(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.
6As stated by the Tribunal in Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241, “the Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence, and file their application within one year, when they may seek to pursue a human rights claim.” It is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the Tribunal with an explanation as to why she did not pursue her rights under the Code in a timely manner.
7In at least two other Tribunal decisions, 2009 HRTO 2143 and 2010 HRTO 1224, the applicant’s applications against the same respondent have been dismissed for delay.
Decision
8I find that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred in 2006. Even if I accept the applicant’s assertion that she only discovered certain information relevant to her allegations in May 2010, there is nothing to suggest she could not have sought this information sooner, particularly given the information is on the prescription from 2001. I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided any reasonable explanation for her failure to pursue her rights from 2006 until she filed this Application in May 2010.
9As the applicant has not satisfied the Tribunal that the delay in filing this Application was incurred in good faith, it is unnecessary to consider whether any substantial prejudice will result to the respondent given the extreme delay in filing this Application.
10Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of September, 2011.
“signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair