HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Maria Rots
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Brian Grobben
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Date: February 28, 2011
Citation: 2011 HRTO 422
Indexed as: Rots v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on December 3, 2010 alleging discrimination because of receipt of public assistance with respect to housing and services, goods and facilities, and reprisal.
2The Application narrative indicates that the applicant was arrested for uttering a death threat and it appears this offence related to events in July 2008 arising out of the applicant’s housing circumstances. The applicant alleges that since the housing complex she resided in was not properly zoned, she should never have been found guilty for uttering death threats to her landlord. The applicant seems to be complaining about being wrongfully evicted. The applicant also appears to be alleging that her Probation Officer is being unfair by failing to consider this and other mitigating factors and that she is being bullied by her Probation Officer.
3By correspondence dated February 2, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the grounds that the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination. The applicant was further advised that, based on a review of the Application and narrative, the Application does not allege a Code-protected ground or social area, and therefore does not appear to raise an issue the Tribunal can resolve. Specifically, the applicant’s narrative failed to identify any acts of discrimination or reprisal within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents in relation a Code-protected grounds or social areas. The applicant was invited to file submissions with respect to all of these issues.
4On February 15, 2011, the applicant filed submissions in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss and attached a number of pieces of correspondence to various other agencies and individuals. The applicant’s submissions appear to indicate that there was no delay in her allegations with respect to her Probation Officer and that the delay with respect to her former landlord was caused because she was exploring other avenues to seek legal recourse.
DECISION
5An application will be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
6I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide with respect to the Probation Officer and I also find that the applicant’s allegations with respect to her former landlord relate to events beyond the one-year limitation period of the Code.
7The Application was filed approximately 17 months after the alleged discriminatory events. Although given the opportunity, the applicant provided no explanation for the delay that leads to the conclusion that it was incurred in good faith.
8The Tribunal has set a fairly high onus on applicants to provide a reasonable explanation for any delay. See, for example, Klein v. Toronto Zionist Council, 2009 HRTO 241. As stated in Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241, in order for an applicant to establish that a delay in filing an application was incurred in good faith, the applicant must show something more than simply an absence of bad faith; otherwise, there would be little meaning to the statutory limitation period.
9The applicant’s submissions indicate that the delay was caused because she was exploring other avenues in an attempt to seek legal recourse. The fact that a person is pursuing other avenues is not generally accepted as a valid or good faith reason for delay in filing an application. See Cartier v. Northeast Mental Health Centre, 2009 HRTO 1670. I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to process the Application because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination described in the Application and the delay was not incurred in good faith.
10Based on the Application and the applicant’s materials, I am also satisfied that the applicant’s allegations with respect to her Probation Officer do not relate to a Code-protected ground or social areas, and, further, do not raise concerns with respect to reprisal. While the applicant clearly feels that she has been treated unfairly by the respondent, she does not explain how the alleged mistreatment occurred in relation to a Code-protected ground or because of an attempt on her part to claim or enforce her Code-rights.
11The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, employment) on the basis of specific protected grounds listed in the Code (for example, disability, gender and age, etc.). The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside of the grounds listed in the Code. The applicant has not identified any ground of discrimination or basis upon which she alleges that the Code was violated by the respondent.
12In conclusion, I am not persuaded that the delay in bringing this Application was incurred in good faith, and further find the Application does not make allegations that relate to the grounds and social areas under the Code, or allege that the actions of the respondents constituted a reprisal or threat of reprisal within the meaning of the Code.
13Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of February, 2011.
”signed by”________
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair