HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jemal Eren
Applicant
-and-
Chrysler Canada Inc. and CAW Local 444
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang
Indexed as: Eren v. Chrysler Canada
1This is an Application filed on March 7, 2011 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).
2The applicant indicated that the facts of the Application are part of a union grievance that was still in progress, and asked that the Application be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process. The Tribunal accordingly requested submissions from the respondents on the request to defer.
3The respondents state that there is no current grievance proceeding. Although the respondent union filed a grievance with respect to the termination of the applicant’s employment in 2007, this grievance has been withdrawn.
4In the circumstances, there is no proceeding to which the Application ought to be deferred and the request to defer is denied.
5Both respondents have raised the issue of whether the Application is untimely. In view of the material in the Application, the Tribunal directs the parties to provide submissions on the issue of delay.
6Section 34(1) of the Code provides:
- (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.
7The applicant has stated in the Application that the last event occurred on December 18, 2010, which appears to be the date of receipt of correspondence from the respondent union. The applicant is directed to provide submissions on why this amounts to a timely “incident” within the meaning of section 34(1), and generally, why he believes this Application is timely in accordance with section 34(1). The applicant must also provide an explanation for why this Application was not made earlier.
8The applicant’s submissions must be delivered to the other parties and filed with the Tribunal within two weeks of this Interim Decision. The respondents may deliver and file responses to the applicant’s submissions within two weeks of their receipt of his submissions. The applicant may reply within one week of his receipt of the respondents’ submissions.
9The requirement to file Responses is held in abeyance pending further direction from the Tribunal.
10I am not seized of this matter
Dated at Toronto this 18^th^ day of May, 2011.
”signed by”____________
Sherry Liang
Vice-chair