Tatiana Ovtchinnikova v. Para Med Home Health Care, 2011 HRTO 587

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tatiana Ovtchinnikova

Applicant

-and-

Para Med Home Health Care

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: March 24, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 587

Indexed as: Ovtchinnikova v. Para Med Home Health Care

1The applicant filed this Application on September 3, 2010 under Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination respect to employment on the basis of place of origin.

2On January 10, 2011, the respondent filed its Response and in the Response asked the Tribunal to dismiss the Application because it was allegedly filed out of time. The respondent alleges that the Application is untimely because it pertains to events that took place 2008. The respondent further alleges that the Application raises no prima facie case of discrimination and that the respondent intends to file a request for summary hearing if its delay submissions are rejected.

DECISION

3Section 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.

4The applicant alleges that she receives fewer work hours than other workers who are of the same nationality as management and that she believes her work hours have been reduced because of her place of origin. In the Application, the applicant indicates that the last incident was in July 2010. The respondent’s submissions indicate that the applicant met with representatives of the respondent in July 2010 about her concerns regarding receiving less hours than her junior colleagues.

5While it appears that the applicant raised similar concerns with the respondent employer in 2008 and that these concerns were investigated at that time, it appears the applicant’s concerns are on-going and that she believes that she was recently subjected to an unfair reduction of work hours. As such, it appears that the Application satisfies the requirements of section 34 of the Code as alleged events took place in July 2010.

6Accordingly, the respondent’s Request to dismiss the Application because of delay is denied.

7I am not seized of this matter.