HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ronald Ihasz

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

as represented by the Ministry of Revenue

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 14, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 305

Indexed as: Ihasz v. Ontario (Revenue)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Ronald Ihasz, Applicant ) Self-Represented

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 45.9 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on December 3, 2010, alleging a breach of a settlement approved by the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”). The applicant indicated in his Application that the last incident of alleged discrimination took place on October 27, 2010.

2A Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) was issued on January 11, 2011, indicating that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was filed more than six months after the date of the contravention to which the Application relates and the applicant had not fully explained how the delay was incurred in good faith.

DELAY

3Section 45.9(3) permits a party to a settlement to file a breach of settlement application within six months of the date of the alleged contravention, or where there is a series of alleged contraventions, within six months of the date of the most recent contravention. Section 45.9(4) permits a party to apply after the six-month time frame where the delay was “incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay”.

4In response to the NOID, the applicant indicated that he was told in March 2010 that his position was being eliminated as a result of the introduction of the harmonized sales tax (HST) and that he would be moved to Revenue Canada on November 25, 2010. He states that he was placed in this position as result of a settlement reached between the parties (and approved by the Commission) in 2004.

5He states that he communicated with the respondent about the alleged breach of settlement after the announcement, but that he did not know at the time that they would require someone to work in his position at the Mississauga office until he saw a job posting for it on October 27, 2010. It is his position that he is within the six-month time limit.

[6] Given the applicant’s submissions, I am not satisfied that it is plain and obvious the Application is filed outside the six-month limitation period. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to deal with the Application.

[7] This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of this Application. I am not seized of this matter.