Bellis v. Hunt Management Groupe Synergie, 2011 HRTO 700

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Avril Bellis

Applicant

-and-

Hunt Management Groupe Synergie Inc. and Lisa Sullivan

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: April 12, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 700

Indexed as: Bellis v. Hunt Management Groupe Synergie

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on March 30, 2009, alleging discrimination in employment. The respondent filed a Response in which it made submissions with respect to delay in filing the Application.

2The applicant was not specifically directed to provide submission on the issue of delay in her Reply when the Response was shared with her and the Tribunal received no Reply or submissions on that issue from her. By Case Assessment Direction dated February 16, 2011, the applicant was specifically directed to provide written submission on the issue of delay within 14 days.

3On March 29, 2011, the Tribunal received what might be a Reply, although it is not in the proper form, consisting of two small hand-written pages. It is not clear whether this was delivered to the respondents, as directed by the Tribunal. In any event, the written submissions are not responsive on the issue of delay.

4The Response indicates that the respondents’ last decision with respect to the applicant took place on October 2, 2007. The respondents state that Application is barred by virtue of s. 34, which 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.

5The respondents advise that the applicant filed an Employment Standards Act, 2000 claim on July 3, 2008. The applicant does not explain why she did not file an Application with the Tribunal at that time, nor why she waited despite being advised by the Employment Standards Officer in his September 2008 report that her matter was properly within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

6As noted in Corrigan v. Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board, 2008 HRTO 424, to determine that a delay in pursuing one’s Code rights was incurred in good faith, the applicant must provide a reasonable explanation for why she did not pursue her Code rights in a timely manner.

7This Tribunal has stated that waiting for other legal proceedings to conclude before pursuing one’s rights under the Code will generally not constitute a valid explanation for delay in filing an Application. See Abutalib v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 1697. There was nothing to prevent the applicant from filing a separate human rights application even while pursuing her appeal of the Employment Standards Officer’s decision.

8Given the absence of evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith, the Tribunal is without the jurisdiction to deal with this Application. Therefore, it is not necessary to address the issue of prejudice.

9The Application is dismissed.