HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Chad Randell
Applicant
-and-
Ornamental Mouldings
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Randell v. Ornamental Mouldings
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Chad Randall, Applicant ) Self-represented
1The applicant filed an Application on December 8, 2010, alleging discrimination in employment by the respondents on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant indicated in his Application that the last incident of alleged discrimination took place on October 27, 2009.
2A Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) was issued on February 14, 2011, indicating that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination.
DELAY
3Section 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.
4As 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.
5The applicant alleges in his Application that he was injured at work on April 10, 2008. He alleges further that when he returned to work he was placed in a physically demanding job, which he was unable to do at the speed demanded of him. During this period, he asked to be placed in jobs with lighter duties. It is not clear what is alleged to have happened on October 27, 2009, but at some point it would appear that the applicant was laid off.
6In response to the NOID, the applicant said that although he had filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination, that when he was taken off work by the WSIB and the respondent he thought it was only a temporary lay off. At some unspecified point he was told by the WSIB that the respondent was not obliged to give him his job back because it has been two years since his injury.
7He also specified in these submissions that the respondent offered him a job within his restrictions, which he started on January 17, 2011. He alleges that this offer was in response to the respondent learning that he had filed this Application. His request for accommodation appears to have been ongoing, even after he was laid off.
[8] Given the applicant’s submissions, I am not satisfied it is plain and obvious that the Application was filed outside the one year limitation period. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to deal with the Application.
[9] This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of this Application.
[10] I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of April, 2011.
”signed by”_____________
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair