The Estate of Ursula Boehme v. Affordable Property Management Inc., 2011 HRTO 638

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

The Estate of Ursula Boehme

Applicant

-and-

Affordable Property Management Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: April 4, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 638

Indexed as: Boehme v. Affordable Property Management

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on September 15, 2010. The Application indicates that the date of the last event was July 31, 2008.

2On January 31, 2011, the Tribunal sent out a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the grounds that (1) the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination and (2) it appeared that a civil proceeding was commenced in court with respect to the alleged Code infringement. The Tribunal directed that written submissions be filed with respect to these issues on or before March 2, 2011. The Tribunal further advised that if written submissions were not filed by that deadline the Tribunal may make its decision based only on the information in the Application and or may consider the failure to respond as an abandonment of the Application.

3As of the date of this Decision, no written submissions have been filed and the time for doing so has elapsed.

DECISION

4Section 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.

5The Tribunal has set a fairly high onus on applicants to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. See, for example, Klein v. Toronto Zionist Council, 2009 HRTO 241. The mandatory one-year limitation period is consistent with the Code’s objective that human rights claims should be dealt with fairly and expeditiously. Thus, the Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence, and file their application within one year, when they seek to pursue a human rights claim.

6The Application indicates that it was not filed within the Code one year timeline due to unfamiliarity with the Code process. The Tribunal has determined that it is not enough for a party who must establish good faith to say that he or she was ignorant of their rights. See Lutz v. Toronto (City), 2009 HRTO 1137; Ababio v. Humber River Regional Hospital, 2009 HRTO 286.

7In the circumstances, given that no written submissions were filed in accordance with the Tribunal’s Notice and that the Application indicates the last incident was in 2008, the Application is determined to be filed outside the Code one year timeline and is also deemed to have been abandoned

8Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.