Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Khawar Harif
Applicant
-and-
The College of Veterinarians of Ontario
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie
Indexed as: Harif v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario
1Khawar Hanif, a veterinarian, has filed an Application under s. 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in a vocational association on the basis of race, colour, ethnicity and creed. The allegations of discrimination are against the College of Veterinarians of Ontario (“CVO”), the regulatory body for veterinarians in Ontario, and arise out of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.
2On September 7, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss based on delay in filing the Application. The respondent has not been served with the Application. The applicant provided written submissions on October 5 and October 12, 2011. The respondent was not required to make submissions.
3The Tribunal does not have the power to consider claims filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination or last in a series of incidents of discrimination unless the delay in filing was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay (subsection 34(1) of the Code).
4Section 34.1 of the Code states:
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.
5As 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 she did not pursue her rights under the Code in a timely manner.
6This decision relates solely to the timeliness of the Application and does not address the issue of whether or not the Code has application to the disciplinary proceedings.
7Dr. Hanif filed his Application on August 16, 2011.
8In his Application, he alleges that the COV instituted disciplinary proceedings against him because of his race, colour, ethnicity and creed. He also alleges that the conduct of the COV in the disciplinary proceedings was discriminatory.
9Two complaints were filed against Dr. Hanif in 2006. The complaints were referred to a discipline committee of the COV in 2007. The discipline committee issued its decisions on the complaints on March 24, 2010. The CVO appealed those decisions. The Divisional Court issued its decision on February 28, 2011, allowing the judicial review application (College of Veterinarians of Ontario v. Hanif, [2011 ONSC 1