HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Zanobia Chaudhary
Applicant
-and-
2063849 Ontario Inc. – Hotel Indigo Toronto Airport and Sim Gill
Respondents
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Chaudhary v. 2063849 Ontario Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Zanobia Chaudhary, Applicant
Self-represented
2063849 Ontario Inc. – Hotel Indigo Toronto Airport and Sim Gill, Respondents
Jason Fairey, Representative
1This Application was filed on January 26, 2012, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability, sex and marital status.
2The respondents filed their Response on April 2, 2012, and requested that the Application be dismissed for delay as being filed more than one year after the last event.
3The applicant filed a Reply on May 3, 2012, and attached copies of her Record of Employment and a letter of termination.
4In response to Question 7 which queries about the date of the alleged last incident of discrimination, the applicant answered January 11, 2011; however, the applicant’s narrative describes events subsequent to that date. In particular, the applicant’s narrative alleges that her employment was terminated on January 26, 2011. The applicant further alleges that about three months after her dismissal she requested another copy of the letter of termination, having left the original behind in her office with the respondent employer. The applicant alleges that while the content of the second letter was entirely different from the original letter, the letters of termination and her Record of Employment confirm that her employment ceased on January 26, 2011.
5It appears that the applicant’s employment was terminated on Janauary 26, 2011, and that the respondents do not appear to dispute the date of termination. This Application was filed exactly one year later on January 26, 2012. Given this timeline, it appears the Application was filed within the one-year limit under section 34(1) of the Code and, as such, there is no basis to dismiss the Application for delay.
6Accordingly, the respondents’ request to dismiss the Application because of delay is denied.
7I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of August, 2012.
“Signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair