Karen Klea v. Zehrs At the Pumps and Zehrs Great Food, 2011 HRTO 58

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Karen Klea

Applicant

-and-

Zehrs At the Pumps and Zehrs Great Food

Respondents

interim decision

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: January 7, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 58

Indexed as: Klea v. Zehrs At The Pumps

1This is an Application filed by the applicant on November 16, 2010, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), in which she alleges that she suffered discrimination in respect of employment because of disability.

2On December 1, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”), in which it directed the applicant to provide submissions explaining the delay in filing the Application, as the applicant had indicated that the last event occurred on October 15, 2009.

3In response to the NOID, the applicant filed submissions on December 10, 2010, specifying in greater detail what happened to her prior to the filing of her Application. It would appear that the applicant is alleging that the last event actually occurred in December 2009.

4An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This includes a decision to dismiss for delay: Battaglia v. Maplehurst Correctional Complex, 2009 HRTO 1167.

5Section 34 of the Code provides:

(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.

6Based on the information provided by the applicant in the narrative and her submissions, it is not plain and obvious that there was a delay in filing the Application. Consequently the Tribunal will continue, at this point, to process the Application.

7The Tribunal shall deliver the Application, the applicant’s submissions filed in response to the NOID and a copy of this Interim Decision on the respondents. This is not a final decision with respect to the issue of whether the application is barred by section 34 of the Code.

8The respondents are directed to file a full Response to the Application, which could include submissions on the issue of jurisdiction.

9I am not seized.