HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Muntaha Hannona
Applicant
-and-
Barrie Police
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Date: March 17, 2011
Citation: 2011 HRTO 538
Indexed as: Hannona v. Barrie Police
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Muntaha Hannona, Applicant ) Self-represented
1The applicant filed an Application on October 25, 2010 alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the ground of ethnic origin contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The events giving rise to the Application are alleged to have taken place in February 2007.
2On February 23, 2011, the Registrar sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) on the basis that the Application appeared to have been filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination alleged in the Application. The Notice also noted that the narrative in her Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination, but it is not necessary to deal with this issue.
3The applicant filed written submissions in response in which she states she is still in the process of trying to “establish proof” and was not aware until October 2010 that she was entitled to ask for disclosure from the respondent.
4The Application alleges that a police officer with the respondent attended at the scene of a motor vehicle accident between the applicant’s car and another car on February 17, 2007. She alleges that he asked her about the correct pronunciation of her name, but did not obtain a statement from her. The officer did obtain a statement from the other driver, as a result of which the applicant was charged and the other driver was not.
5The Tribunal’s power to hear and determine human rights applications is based on the Code. The provision which deals with the time limitations for filing applications is set out in s. 34, which states in part:
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.
6As noted above, pursuant to s. 34 of the Code, where an application is filed more than a year after the incident to which the application relates (or after the last incident in a series of incidents), the Tribunal cannot deal with the application unless it is satisfied that the delay in filing the application was incurred in good faith.
7As 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.
8This Application was filed nearly four years after the events giving rise to it. Although the applicant states she “knew” she had been discriminated against by the police officer’s actions, facts continue to surface and she continues to investigate this matter. The passage at paragraph 23 of Klein v. Toronto Zionist Council, 2009 HRTO 241 is germane to the applicant’s argument:
What the applicant later uncovered was not information that assisted her in discovering her potential case under the Code, but rather evidence that would support her allegations. The discoverability doctrine may provide an exception to a statutory limitation period in order to ensure fairness to parties who simply cannot know within the stipulated timeframe that they have a case. It does not exist to allow aggrieved persons to delay making a claim in order to gather evidence that confirms their suspicions or buttresses their case.
9Both the Application and the applicant’s subsequent submissions are replete with examples of actions she has taken with respect to this matter in other forums. She has provided no satisfactory explanation for why she could not have filed her Application to this Tribunal in a timely manner.
10Given the absence of evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith, the Tribunal is without jurisdiction to deal with this Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 17th day of March, 2011.
”signed by”________
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair