HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Raymond Kim
Applicant
-and-
George Brown College and University of Toronto
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Indexed as: Kim v. George Brown College
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Raymond Kim, Applicant ) Self-represented )
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on December 8, 2010, alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services by the respondents, on the basis of disability and sex. The allegations stem from incidents that the applicant alleges took place at the University of Toronto from the autumn semester of 2005 to the autumn semester of 2007 and incidents he alleges took place at George Brown College from the autumn semester of 2008 to the autumn semester of 2010.
2A Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) was issued on February 18, 2011 indicating that the Application as against the University of Toronto appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination, and further, that a review of the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by either of the named respondents.
3In response to the NOID, on March 3, 2011, the applicant provided a copy of a chain of emails which ended May 2008, between himself and an individual at the University of Toronto regarding his courses and grades, and the fact he had expressed concerns regarding difficulties with professors, as well as some discussion regarding psychiatric appointments and care. In response to the NOID, he indicated that the individual at the University had been “scapegoating and denying my claims of abuse and mistreatment from professors” and that she had him see a psychiatrist who tried him with medication that “did not work at all”. He also stated that the narrative was based on mistreatment and re-stated his claims that he had been discriminated against.
DELAY
4Section 34 states, in part:
(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.
5As 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 he did not pursue his rights under the Code in a timely manner.
6The last of the incidents complained of at the University of Toronto dates from the autumn semester of 2007 and the email chain provided by the applicant ended in May, 2008. The Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination, and I do not find that the applicant has provided an explanation as to why he did not file his Application as against the University of Toronto in a timely manner. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the Application as against the University of Toronto.
7The applicant’s narrative of allegations against George Brown College is similar to much of his narrative of allegations against the University of Toronto. In the narrative of allegations against George Brown College, the applicant has complained that professors taught by pointing to the blackboard with their middle fingers, and has also made several allegations that professors have moved their legs or feet in ways which were inappropriate, including an allegation that a professor had sexually harassed him by waving her feet around. He complained about professors who sat on their desks with their legs up on a chair and complained that one professor had rested her forearm against her crotch while seated at her desk with her feet on a chair. He complained of what he called “high-context sign language” when a professor shuffled his legs and also when another man, unidentified, put his right arm at the back of his own chair. He stated that one professor developed his own sign language “in order to discriminate against and to harass” him. He stated that one professor had swung her leg back and inverted her arm, putting pressure on her leg. He also made reference to “duties of teachers to address problems of satellite controllers with me”. He has indicated that all of these actions have caused him distress.
8The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in the areas of accommodation, services, goods and facilities, employment, contracts and membership in vocational associations, on the basis of grounds listed in the Code. Neither the Application nor the applicant’s submissions suggest a nexus between the applicant’s allegations and any of the grounds identified in the Code.
9I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, I dismiss the Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of March, 2011.
“signed by”
Maureen Doyle
Vice-chair