HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kelli Leizer
Applicant
-and-
Toronto District School Board and Patrick Knight
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist
Indexed as: Leizer v. Toronto District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Kelli Leizer, Applicant
Self-represented
1This is an Application filed on August 7, 2012, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of sex and reprisal. The Application identifies a number of alleged incidents of discrimination beginning in September 2009. The Application identifies the last incident of alleged discrimination as having occurred on May 21, 2011.
2A Notice of Incomplete Application and Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") was issued by the Tribunal on August 27, 2012, indicating that some information was missing and that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination.
3The Tribunal advised the applicant that she had until September 10, 2012, to provide the missing information and to make submissions on the jurisdictional issue. On September 10, 2012, the applicant provided the Tribunal with information in response to its request and submissions on the jurisdictional issue.
4The applicant submits that she filed a complaint about the personal respondent's actions that are the subject of her Application with the institutional respondent's Human Rights department. She submits that she received the preliminary findings from the investigation into her complaint in November 2011 and that this investigation disclosed that the respondents had violated the Code. The applicant submits the steps the institutional respondent subsequently took (or didn't take) in response to these findings constitute, in of themselves, acts of discrimination or reprisal and these further acts of discrimination make her Application timely. The applicant makes a number of submissions related to the institutional respondent's internal human rights procedures to suggest why the delay in filing her Application was incurred in good faith.
5An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondents, if it is "plain and obvious" on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. This includes a decision to dismiss for delay: Battaglia v. Maplehurst Correctional Complex, 2009 HRTO 1167, Brooks v. North York General Hospital, 2010 HRTO 453.
6Section 34 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.
7Based on the information provided by the applicant it is not plain and obvious that there was a delay in filing the Application. This is not a final decision with respect to the issue of whether the application is barred by section 34 of the Code.
8The Tribunal will continue to process the Application. The Tribunal shall deliver the Application, the applicant's submissions filed in response to the NOID and a copy of this Interim Decision on the respondents.
9If the respondent takes the position that the Tribunal should not accept the Application because of delay, the parties may be required to provide evidence and submissions in support of their positions.
10I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of September, 2012.
"Signed by"
Eric Whist
Vice-chair