Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Michelle Toupin Applicant
-and-
Ottawa Community Housing Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: February 18, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 356 Indexed as: Toupin v. Ottawa Community Housing
APPEARANCES
Michelle Toupin, Applicant ) Self-represented Ottawa Community Housing, Respondent ) Laura Clark, Counsel
Decision
1This is an Application filed on May 8, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). In the documents filed on May 8, 2009, the applicant alleged that she experienced discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, sex, marital status and receipt of public assistance.
2The respondent organization, her current landlord, filed a Response and a Request for Order During Proceedings requesting that the Application be dismissed for delay. The applicant filed a Form 11 opposing the Request.
3On June 18, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings dated June 16, 2010, seeking to amend her Application and attached an Application form containing the amendments she sought to make to her original Application.
4In the new Application document, she listed the grounds of discrimination as disability, marital status, receipt of public assistance and reprisal. She alleged that although the original Application was prepared on her behalf by counsel she retained and instructed and bears her signature, she was unaware of the contents of that document and she sought to correct the inaccuracies contained in it.
5She submitted that the first time she saw the Schedules attached to the Application was in approximately November 2009. It was then, she alleges, that she saw that there were significant errors and misstatements in the document and she realized her case had been mischaracterized. She says that the reason it took her seven months to submit the Request to amend her Application is the inaction of her former counsel.
6The respondent filed a Form 11 opposing the Request to amend and cited a number of reasons for its opposition, indicating that a party should expect to be held to documents that they sign and alleging that it will suffer prejudice if the applicant is permitted to “rewrite her Application” more than a year after filing the original one, to which they have responded. They characterize the Request to amend as a request to replace one Application with another that is significantly different, in that new allegations are raised as well as new grounds identified.
7The parties attended mediation on June 28, 2010. It did not result in a settlement. Following the mediation, a conference call was scheduled to allow the parties an opportunity to make submissions on the respondent’s Request that the Application be dismissed because of the delay in filing it, and the applicant’s Request to amend her Application.
8Following a Request by the applicant that the matter be dealt with at an in person hearing rather than by conference call, a half day hearing was held during which I heard the parties’ submissions on the issues outlined.
9Having considered the parties’ submissions, I find that this Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination and the applicant has not shown that the delay was incurred in good faith within the meaning of the Tribunal’s caselaw. Accordingly, the Application must be dismissed. As the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the Application as a whole, there is no need to consider the applicant’s Request to amend the Application.
THE LAW
10Section 34 of the Code provides that an Application must be filed more than one year after the incident or last incident in a series to which it relates. A late Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by it. Sections 34(1) and (2) read as follows:
- (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 (