HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Alan Boswell
Applicant
-and-
Foams Fabricators and Suzanne Killins
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Boswell v. Foams Fabricators
Introduction
1This is an Application filed 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 because of family status. The Application has not been delivered to the respondents.
2The Application was filed on July 19, 2012. On September 6, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because it appeared that the Application was not filed in accordance with section 34 of the Code and because it was not clear that any of the allegations in the Application would constitute an incident of discrimination or harassment under the Code. The applicant was invited to make submissions about whether the Application should be dismissed.
3Section 34 of the Code provides as follows:
- (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.
4According to the Application, the applicant worked for the corporate respondent or a related company in 1989. The Application suggests that this employment was terminated for discriminatory reasons in 1989 and family status was indicated as the basis for the alleged discrimination.
5The Application indicates that the applicant has experienced continuing discrimination and harassment involving the respondents and suggests that this consists of false information being provided about him.
6The Application indicates that it is related, in some way, to another Application in Tribunal file number 2012-11261-I. I note that the Application in that file was dismissed in Decision 2012 HRTO 1563 on the grounds that the Application was the same or substantially the same as a previous Application filed by the applicant. That previous Application was dismissed because it was not filed in time and in accordance with section 34 of the Code.
7In his submissions in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the applicant refers to various incidents in 1989, 2001 and 2003. He also refers to various unresolved issues relating to his employment in 1989. He indicates that there is ongoing harassment in the form of false information about him which he believes originates with the respondents.
CONCLUSIONS
8The Tribunal does not have power to deal with general allegations of unfairnes or improper treatment. It only has power to deal with the specific areas identified in the Code.
9Section 34 provides that any allegations that the Tribunal does have power to deal with must be filed with the Tribunal within one year of the last alleged discriminatory event. The Tribunal may permit an Application to be filed more than one year after the last discriminatory event but only if the delay was incurred in good faith and if no substantial prejudice would result to any person affected by the delay.
10In this case, it appears that the alleged discrimination in respect of employment took place in 1989, more than twenty years before the Application was filed. The applicant has not offered any good faith explanation for the delay and I am satisfied that a delay of that length would result in prejudice to the respondent because the passage of time would make it hard for the respondents to find documents and witnesses.
11The allegations regarding events after 1989 appear to relate to allegations that the respondents are spreading false information about the applicant. This is not a matter that this Tribunal has the power to deal with. As well, the only specific allegations appear to relate to events in 2003 and earlier. The applicant suggests that these general problems are ongoing but provided no specifics. As a result, even if the Tribunal had the power to deal with these allegations, the Tribunal would not be able to deal with them because the Application regarding them was not filed in time.
12For these reasons, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 18^th^ day of October, 2012.
”signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair