Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Edward Yeboah
Applicant
-and-
Board of Directors of Brampton/Bramalea Kwik Kab Taxi, Jagdeep Boparai, Jawsinder Parmar, Tariq Zafar and Rajinder Dhaliwal
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Yeboah v. Brampton/Bramalea Kwik Kab Taxi
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Edward Yeboah, Applicant ) Self-represented )
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 November 9, 2010 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race. He identifies May 2009 as being the date of the last incident. The Application has not been sent to the respondents.
2Specifically, the applicant alleges the respondent taxi company would not issue a letter of employment for him. He alleges that an employee of the taxi company told him in May 2009 that the company’s Board of Directors had advised that a letter would not be issued for him. He also alleges that a previous taxi owner, who died in 2009, told him many times that the Board of Directors often told him “Why have you brought a black man into this company”.
3As a result of not obtaining a letter of employment from the respondent taxi company, the applicant alleges that his name was removed from the City of Brampton’s (“the City”) registry for a taxi number plate (priority list).
4A Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) dated November 23, 2010 was issued to the applicant by the Tribunal. In the NOID, the Tribunal advised that it appeared the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the Application was filed more than a year after the last incident of discrimination described in the Application. The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions by December 23, 2010 explaining how the delay was incurred in good faith and why no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.
5The applicant filed submissions attributing the delay in filing his Application to the time his previous lawyer took to send a complaint to the City about his removal from the priority list and the time the City took to respond to that complaint.
DECISION
6Section 34 of the Code requires that an Application be filed within one year of the date of the last incident to which an application relates unless the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay. The section states:
(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.
7In order to satisfy the Tribunal that the delay was incurred in good faith, an applicant must provide a reasonable explanation as to why he or she did not pursue his or her rights under the Code in a timely manner. The Tribunal has set a fairly high onus on applicants to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, while recognizing that there will be legitimate circumstances that justify exercising the discretion under section 34(2). See Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241.
8In this case, the applicant has provided information about his attempts to address his concerns with the City. However, the City is not named as a respondent.
9The applicant states quite clearly in his Application that his request for a letter of employment from the respondents was denied in May 2009, but he has not provided any submissions to explain or address the delay in filing his Application as against the respondents. His Application was filed beyond the one year limitation period required by section 34(1) of the Code.
10Accordingly, in the absence of any explanation to support finding the delay in filing his Application against the respondents was incurred in good faith, the Application is dismissed as being outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Dated at Toronto, this 20^th^ day of April, 2011.
‘’Signed by”
Alison Renton
Vice-chair