HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joe Panimondo

Applicant

-and-

CAPREIT GP Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: October 6, 2011

Indexed as: Panimondo v. CAPREIT GP Inc.

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on July 5, 2011, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal. The applicant indicated in his Application that the last incident of alleged discrimination took place on December 28, 2009, approximately 18 months prior to his Application being filed.

2A Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) was issued on August 4, 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. The applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID on September 27, 2011.

DELAY

3Section 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.

4As 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.” When filing outside this one year time limit, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the Tribunal with an explanation as to why he did not pursue his rights under the Code in a timely manner.

5The applicant’s submissions indicate that the attempted to file his Application on December 10, 2010, which would have been within the one year time limit set out in the Code, but he inadvertently filed the Form 1A, without the accompanying Form 1. He states the Tribunal returned the package to him. He attempted to re-file the correct documents, but once again filed the Form 1A only.

6The applicant further submits that by the time he figured out that the wrong form had been filed, the hard drive, which he states contained his Form 1A, was inaccessible because his laptop was not functioning. It apparently took some time to fix. In addition to this, he submits a letter from his doctor which states that his mental condition may have contributed to the delay.

7This explanation relates to the delay in filing his Application in December 2010 concerning the December 2009 allegation. The applicant alleges that after three years on disability leave, his employment with the company was terminated. However, the bulk of the Application deals with what he alleges is the respondent’s discriminatory treatment of him in the fall of 2006, which resulted in him being unable to return to work commencing December 14, 2006.

8These allegations are not part of a “series of incidents” as that term has been interpreted by the Tribunal. The applicant has provided no explanation for why he did not file what would have then been a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission concerning the alleged discrimination.

9In the absence of any explanation, the Tribunal cannot conclude the delay concerning these allegations was incurred in good faith. The Tribunal is without jurisdiction to deal with this portion of the Application. Accordingly, all allegations that predate the termination of the applicant’s employment in December 2009 are dismissed.

[10] With respect to the allegation that the applicant’s employment was terminated for discriminatory reasons, I am not satisfied it is plain and obvious that the delay in filing the Application was not incurred in good faith. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to deal with the Application as it relates to the alleged December 2009 termination of the applicant’s employment. .

[11] This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the allegation concerning the termination of the applicant’s employment.

[12] I am not seized of this matter.