HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joshua Cohen

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Services Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: April 11, 2011

Indexed as: Cohen v. Ottawa Police Services Board

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on October 21, 2010, alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability and sexual orientation. The applicant indicated in his Application that the last incident of alleged discrimination took place on August 23, 2009, although he indicated that the charges against him were dismissed on October 23, 2009.

2A Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) was issued on February 9, 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.

5Among the materials submitted to the Tribunal was correspondence between the Tribunal and the applicant that pre-dated the filing of his Application. It would appear that he attempted to file a Form 1C and a Statement of Delivery (Form 23) on or around August 23, 2010. This appears to have been returned to him because it was not accompanied by a Form 1. It was also explained to him at that time that it was not necessary for him to file a Statement of Delivery for an Application.

[6] In the circumstances, I am not satisfied it is plain and obvious that the Application was filed outside the one year limitation period or, in the alternative, that the delay was not incurred in good faith. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to deal with the Application.

[7] This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of this Application. I am not seized of this matter.