HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ayesha Jilani
Applicant
-and-
Aditya Birla/Minacs
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Jilani v. Aditya Birla/Minacs
1The Tribunal is in receipt of an Application filed on December 17, 2010 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, citizenship, ethinic origin and creed, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).
2Subsequent to receipt of the Application, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction asking the applicant to clarify the intended scope of her Application and provide submissions on the issue of delay. The applicant was advised to provide her submissions by March 18, 2011, but to date has not done so and the time for so doing has now passed.
3The applicant was specifically directed to file with the Tribunal, and deliver a copy to the respondent, submissions clarifying the intended scope of her Application, in particular whether she intended the allegations concerning the termination of her employment at the end of her maternity/parental leave to form part of her Application. As she did not file these submissions, the Tribunal will base its decision on delay on only those allegations which appear in her Application.
Delay
4The Application describes a hiring competition that took place on or about June 30, 2008, approximately two and a half years prior to her filing her Application. Section 34 of the Code, 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.
5Section 34 establishes a one-year time limit after the date of the incident (or last incident in a series of incidents) for filing applications. In order to accept applications filed beyond the one year time limit, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.
6Given the absence of evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith, the Tribunal is without the jurisdiction to deal with this Application. It is not necessary, therefore, to address the issue of prejudice.
7The Application is accordingly dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 15th day of April, 2011.
“Signed by”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair